Susan's Place Transgender Resources

New article by Ann Lawrence http://www.annelawrence.com/brain-sex_critique.html (http://www.annelawrence.com/brain-sex_critique.html)

The simplest and most plausible explanation of the Zhou/Kruijver findings is that they are attributable, completely or predominantly, to the effects of cross-sex hormone therapy administered during adulthood. There is no longer any reason to postulate anything more complicated.

Hulshoff Pol et al. wrote:

The findings suggest that treatment of MFs with estrogens and antiandrogens decreases the male brain size toward female proportions, whereas treatment of FMs with androgens (not substantially affecting circulating estrogen levels) increases the female brain size toward male proportions. The magnitude of this change (i.e., 31 ml over a 4-month period) is striking, since it signifies a decrease in brain volume, which is at least ten times the average decrease of about 2.5 ml a year in healthy adults. . . The total brain volume changes are at least in part due to changes in medial brain structures surrounding [the] ventricles (including, but not limited to, the hypothalamus . . .). (pp. S110-S111)

Interesting reading, Ruth

I'm sad to see this study abandoned with only looking at such a small sample. I believe that conclusions were drawn long before they should be in the three studies.  We need more data to be sure. Bummer

Cindi

Thank you Ruth for posting this.  I thought it was very interesting reading as well.  But....yes, there is always a BUT...I have to disagree with Blanchard views here:

Quote from: articleAccording to Blanchard's typology, homosexual MtF transsexuals, who are exclusively sexually attracted to men.

Homosexual?  I believe it should be heterosexual considering that a MTF person has a female gender identification.

Quote from: article Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals, who may be sexually attracted to women, to women and men, or to persons of neither sex, are not markedly gender-atypical in their appearance or behavior; they are believed to seek sex reassignment primarily because they are sexually attracted to the idea of becoming women, a paraphilic sexual interest that Blanchard (1989a) called  ->-bleeped-<-.

Again, the same error.  But to call transsexualism a paraphilia goes beyond stupidity.  But again, let's not forget that this is only Blanchard's theory, and you all know what I think about Blanchard based on other threads here, don't you? >:D


tink :icon_chick:

It's too bad that people write their theories and other people take them as gospel.  How many studies have been done and theories written that end up being disproved? 

The problem isn't brain size or gender identity or anything like that.  The problem is society's rules that have us believing the problem is something else.  Change these rules and all of the sudden these studies and theories vanish.  What these people should be doing is questioning the society that created all these "problems". 

The real problem is people think too much.  We should be living instead.

Julie

QuoteBecause the brain-sex theory is a "unitary" theory of transsexualism, it appears to contradict another widely accepted theory, proposed by Blanchard (1989a, 1989b, 2005), that there are two distinctly different subtypes of MtF transsexuals, homosexual and nonhomosexual, with different clinical presentations and different etiologies.

QuoteHow can data from seven (or perhaps eight) transsexual brains be reconciled with Blanchard's transsexual typology, which is now accepted by most knowledgeable clinicians and researchers?

(added emphasis is mine)

Dr. Lawrence is again trying to manufacture some legitimacy for Blanchard's widely discredited theories by stretching the truth to its elastic limits.  His work and that of Drs. Lawrence and Bailey have been shown to be flawed and steeped in sexual prejudice.  As such, I do not find Dr. Lawrence's supposed "Critique" to be valid.  I simply don't trust her to give us the whole story since it might contradict her pet theory.

I have often lamented that transsexualism is perceived to be so rare that very little funding and research is devoted to it.  That's why Lynn Conway's estimate of the rate of transsexuality should be promoted and tested until there is no doubt.  Maybe then we'll get a little more respect from the research community.

hugs & smiles
helen

Actually, I've often wondered if there isn't a paraphilic element to it. I don't know. But I have wondered.

I've also wondered in the past if a simple castration would not have solved my GID.  But after participating in the forum here, that question has been has been resolved with a resounding "No".

Cindi

I have to agree with Helen.  Years ago I used to have a lot of respect for Dr Lawrence until she sided and supported the theories of Blanchard.  I turned to her site for much information back then, now I would never recommend her, or anyone associated with her.

Steph

Quote from: Cindi Jones on March 17, 2007, 05:50:48 PM
Actually, I've often wondered if there isn't a paraphilic element to it. I don't know. But I have wondered.

I HATE Blanchard's theory... because much of it rings true for me. Not everything, not the specifics, but the overall theme scares the heck out of me. It's *probably* his confusing a description of how this evolves for an actual *cause* of that evolution, but STILL.

There's an interesting article on the "transkids" site called, "The Gender Identity Fallacy: How an Irrational Concept Prevents a Rational Understanding of Transsexuality," By Alex Parkinson. When I read:

This aspect of sexuality is what needs to be appreciated in  ->-bleeped-<- in order to explain gender dysphoria in biologically heterosexual males; only looking at the most explicit expressions of  ->-bleeped-<- like masturbation while cross dressed, actually misses the bulk of how it's experienced. In a lot of ways, gender dysphoria in biologically male heterosexuals is analogous to a normal heterosexual male with a crush on a girl they're attracted to. The difference is that in these transsexuals, they have a crush on an internal girl that they would like to be, rather then an actual person, precisely as one might expect of a male heterosexuality that was directed at ones self.

I read that and was like... yikes... NAILED me. See my avatar over there? Well gee, think I've personified this whole GID thing a bit much? This description IS what it "feels like" for me, though that doesn't make it a cause or pathology. And it wasn't always this way, not as a child. But over time, that frustration condensed and manifested into an actual, semi-seperate entity I call my "muse." And yes, I'm in love with her in some bizarre way, even though she IS me. But I see it as a RESULT of GID, not a cause.

The essay made a LOT of sense when I read it, so when I'm done it's like, "wow, so much for gender identity!" But it's kinda like when you watch a movie - it makes SO much sense when you're IN it, experiencing it within it's own context. But then there's a commercial break, and the spell is broken.

What it's taught me though is I don't think ANY of the narratives or theories fully explain all this. It's kinda like the particle/wave thing: pick the theory you need in order to manifest the phenomena you want to study... don't assume the phenomena you observe dictates a singular Explanation Of Everything.

Hey! I gotta write that one down. "Pick the..." Got it. Cool.

QuoteI've also wondered in the past if a simple castration would not have solved my GID.

One of my reasons for starting HRT - will my feelings change once the sex urge of testosterone is gone? I figured in my case, that urge must be manifesting SOMEHOW, since it wasn't showing up as an actual urge for physical sex.

Yea, lol, everything became 100x more clarified and WORSE.

Kate

When I hear claptrap like this, with little scientific study behind it just the statistically unreliable results used to draw a preset conclusion really gets my knickers in a twist.

If any one of those "experts" walked a mile in my heels, they'd know that no matter how you dance around it, the feelings are authentic and the condition is real and fatal unless treated.

Spend a decade or two in depression and see how you feel!  Then have an expert tell you it's like have a *crush* on a girl?  Or it's just an excuse for masturbation?????  Sorry, that toy broke a while ago.  I don't regret it and don't want it back.  And what is all this confusion of gender identity and sexual orientation?  I denied my transsexuality for decades because I made that same confusion.

If I go on I'll just end up raising my blood pressure.

I've just started to truly find myself, I don't need an "experts" guidance to help me find my way!

-Sandy (getting off that pony now...)

Quote from: article Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals, who may be sexually attracted to women, to women and men, or to persons of neither sex, are not markedly gender-atypical in their appearance or behavior; they are believed to seek sex reassignment primarily because they are sexually attracted to the idea of becoming women, a paraphilic sexual interest that Blanchard (1989a) called  ->-bleeped-<-.

^{*snickers quietly to herself*}

I was going to comment but ^*shrug* Let them live in their delusion.

Quote from: Kassandra on March 17, 2007, 08:48:26 PM
If any one of those "experts" walked a mile in my heels, they'd know that no matter how you dance around it, the feelings are authentic and the condition is real and fatal unless treated.

To be fair, ->-bleeped-<- theory doesn't say the feelings aren't real - just that they aren't caused by any sense of "gender identity," but rather by an inward-directed sexual orientation where non-gay TSs are attracted to the image or idea of themselves as women... and the only way to satisfy that desire is to BECOME her. It's not necessary a sexual attraction, but often more like a romantic crush, wanting to be with her, as her, like her.

It's interesting, as it kinda describes why I've never been literally sexually attracted to women. Oh sure, I'm utterly fascinated with them, but I've never really fantasized about having sex with them. I look at my relationship with my wife, why we've never been able to be intimate - and it's ALWAYS been as if there's this other woman I'm in love with, the one in my head, my muse whom I have this platonic, yet obsessive crush on. How could she possibly compete with that? Heck, without knowing a thing about ->-bleeped-<- theory, my wife *accused* me one day of being in love with her (my muse)... and I started to cry, realizing the truth of her words.

Whatever though... in the end, it doesn't matter one bit. The pain AND solution remain the same, however you explain it. I'm getting too old now to worry much about explanations... I just want this torture to STOP.

Kate

Quote from: Cindi Jones on March 17, 2007, 05:50:48 PM
Actually, I've often wondered if there isn't a paraphilic element to it. I don't know. But I have wondered.

I've also wondered in the past if a simple castration would not have solved my GID. But after participating in the forum here, that question has been has been resolved with a resounding "No".

Cindi

While the benefit and relief was substantial and it did save my life, the procedure did not solve my GID.

Quote from: Tink on March 17, 2007, 04:45:34 PM
Thank you Ruth for posting this.  I thought it was very interesting reading as well.  But....yes, there is always a BUT...I have to disagree with Blanchard views here:

Quote from: articleAccording to Blanchard's typology, homosexual MtF transsexuals, who are exclusively sexually attracted to men.

Homosexual?  I believe it should be heterosexual considering that a MTF person has a female gender identification.

Quote from: article Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals, who may be sexually attracted to women, to women and men, or to persons of neither sex, are not markedly gender-atypical in their appearance or behavior; they are believed to seek sex reassignment primarily because they are sexually attracted to the idea of becoming women, a paraphilic sexual interest that Blanchard (1989a) called  ->-bleeped-<-.

Again, the same error.  But to call transsexualism a paraphilia goes beyond stupidity.  But again, let's not forget that this is only Blanchard's theory, and you all know what I think about Blanchard based on other threads here, don't you? >:D


tink :icon_chick:

There were some real 'verbal firestorms' precipitated over Blanchard's effluence in another forum that I once was a member of (Melissa will recall these) and I have read questionable things about Anne Lawrence.

I think very little about the ->-bleeped-<- notion.

Your post is 'right on', Tink.

QuoteAccording to Blanchard's typology, homosexual MtF transsexuals, who are exclusively sexually attracted to men.

So where does Anne herself fall into this scheme of things then?

As I recall, isn't she "married" to a guy? If she supports his theory, does she identify as a
"homosexual M2F transsexual?"

Or is she an "autogynephallic heterosexual male?"

Where do they get this stuff?

Sigh. I've had a lot of exposure to speculative psychology. Often interesting, too frequently used aggressively or to pathologize unnecessarily. ->-bleeped-<- does not impress me, and I don't see a lot of usefulness in it. That seems to be the acid test for a clinical hypothesis, does it lead to progress in understanding and lead to a lessening of suffering. The brain research is interesting, as is the neuropsychological test differences. But still not very impressive. I've spent a fair amount of time delving into neuroanatomy and neurochemistry (28 years!). So, results mentioned do not seem persuasive.. let's say, suggestive and interesting.. but nowhere near enough to do more than throw hints.
Blessings, Tara

Quote from: Tara on March 18, 2007, 10:20:21 AM
Sigh. I've had a lot of exposure to speculative psychology. Often interesting, too frequently used aggressively or to pathologize unnecessarily. ->-bleeped-<- does not impress me, and I don't see a lot of usefulness in it. That seems to be the acid test for a clinical hypothesis, does it lead to progress in understanding and lead to a lessening of suffering. The brain research is interesting, as is the neuropsychological test differences. But still not very impressive. I've spent a fair amount of time delving into neuroanatomy and neurochemistry (28 years!). So, results mentioned do not seem persuasive.. let's say, suggestive and interesting.. but nowhere near enough to do more than throw hints.
Blessings, Tara

But do you know what Tara? I get so sick of reading such intellectual tripe rife with irrational conjectures, non sequiturs and incongruities..

I mean, give me a break!!.

A posited 'theory' is egregiously flawed and patently absurd, yet the adherents to the same cling with a 'death grip' to them, notwithstanding.

Speaking rhetorically and generally,

"If you posit or formulate a theory and I discern so much as one logical or rational flaw therein, your theory is summarily discarded, like so much refuse."

Bailey's proposals are just that: patently ludicrous and Anne Lawrence is..."confused".

Give a girl a break!  >:(

This study seems very consistent with what we know about transsexualism scientifically.

I have noticed that many transsexuals reject theories that don't go with what they think or wish is true. I have to overcome this tendancy as well, but science is science.

I will be doing my own research in this field while I am in grad school this year. This research seems to prove my hypothysis about sexual orientation and age in relation to behavior and passing ability. Thanks for posting it!

Bri

Quote from: rhonda13000 on March 18, 2007, 10:56:58 AM
A posited 'theory' is egregiously flawed and patently absurd, yet the adherents to the same cling with a 'death grip' to them, notwithstanding.

As do the believers in GID theory, even though it's also "patently absurd" logically.

QuoteBailey's proposals are just that: patently ludicrous...

His conclusions certainly are flawed, but I find the phenomena he describes fascinating. He found many of the missing pieces of our puzzle, but he cut and mutilated them to make them fit into the picture he wanted to portray.

Kate

As do the believers in GID theory, even though it's also "patently absurd" logically.

Are you referring to the DSM IV?

Quote from: Kate on March 17, 2007, 07:30:20 PMI read that and was like... yikes... NAILED me. See my avatar over there? Well gee, think I've personified this whole GID thing a bit much? This description IS what it "feels like" for me, though that doesn't make it a cause or pathology.

I used to be afraid that a similar description applied to me too, but actually for me it's is mostly feeling good about being what a lot of people consider attractive, rather than an affinity for my own core identity. Can be difficult to resolve that distinction. Even still, isn't it logical that someone who is attracted to their own gender would *like* their own image (be it internal or external)? I don't know how common it is but I've heard at least one (cisgendered) person express something to that effect.

---------------------

And on the subject of orientation, there's something I've heard from the gay community, not from a large enough sample to draw conclusions from, but still I think it's valid. The majority of cisgendered heterosexuals grow up preferring friendships with others of their own gender, only to have something suddenly switch during puberty when they start to have feelings for the opposite gender. What I've heard expressed is that in homosexuals the "switch" doesn't happen, so the person develops feelings for others of their own gender.

So in that context, how can an MtF who is only attracted to women be called straight? No "switch" took place because the person was tuned into femaleness all along, and the feelings of attraction that developed are directed towards the same, not the "other".

Quote from: Thundra on March 17, 2007, 11:44:08 PM

QuoteAccording to Blanchard's typology, homosexual MtF transsexuals, who are exclusively sexually attracted to men.

So where does Anne herself fall into this scheme of things then?

As I recall, isn't she "married" to a guy? If she supports his theory, does she identify as a
"homosexual M2F transsexual?"

Or is she an "autogynephallic heterosexual male?"

Where do they get this stuff?

Yes, I have read this too, and it is so absurd that I'd rather not comment (just to prevent my liver from getting a little upset ;))

Wow, and I thought I was heterosexual, silly me!  I was just trying to validate my womanhood! *giggles sarcastically*  Oh, the truth of the matter is that the supporters of this nonsense don't actually know how much I love and like men! :P

tink :icon_chick:

Hey everyone,

I have to agree with Steph here. Her site used to have a scathing rebuke of Blanchard's study and a point by point disecting of it's errors, including the fact that Blanchard only included test subjects that represented the outcome he wanted. The assumptions made completely biased the entire study. To see her now defend Blanchard makes me think she must have completely sold out. I wonder if he got control over her funding or something. Talk about doing a flip flop.

Anyway, the entire study is incredibly limited at this point and is far from decisive. The problem is that no one has any money to study it and no one seems that interested. People are going on Blanchard's work because of a lack of anything else.

As far as there being two types of transsexuals that are so different it's impossible they could have the same cause, that is far from making it a fact. While I agree there are stark contrasts, there is an intersecting point where the outcome does not depend on which group one is from. Once a person beleives they have the wrong body, it makes little difference when it happened, when considering treatment options. Once the GID reaches intolerable levels, it's transition or death, regardless of which type of transsexual one is labeled.

Love always,
Elizabeth

I stopped trying to figure this stuff out.  Just being who (or what) I am, I contradict so many theories it just gives me a headache.  I have my own set of theories as well, but that's all they are.

Quote from: Brianna on March 18, 2007, 12:43:50 PM
This research seems to prove my hypothysis about sexual orientation and age in relation to behavior and passing ability.

I'd love to hear it.  If you already have it posted on here somewhere, please point to where.  My guess is that your hypothesis is in line with my theories.

Melissa

Quote from: Kimberly on March 17, 2007, 09:07:40 PM

Quote from: article Nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals, who may be sexually attracted to women, to women and men, or to persons of neither sex, are not markedly gender-atypical in their appearance or behavior; they are believed to seek sex reassignment primarily because they are sexually attracted to the idea of becoming women, a paraphilic sexual interest that Blanchard (1989a) called  ->-bleeped-<-.

^{*snickers quietly to herself*}

I was going to comment but ^*shrug* Let them live in their delusion.

I'll comment.  They've failed to recognize that the above samples from the article are characteristics of a ->-bleeped-<- and not a transsexual. 

Its kind of interesting that no one has commented on the impact of hormones on brain size  >:D

Might explain why Transsexual MtFs seem to loose the plot ???

Looks like the FtMs are onto a winner :) Anyone else noticed that FtMs seem to be much more active in the trans field than they used to be and when I have come across them I have always been impressed by their drive and committment. Always thought it was just the testosterone but it seems like they also have more brain power !!!

Ruth

QuoteWow, and I thought I was heterosexual, silly me!  I was just trying to validate my womanhood! *giggles sarcastically*

Hah, hah, I love you, Tink! I agree, and also I feel that I don't need to validate my womanhood to anybody, I simply am who I am and I figure that you are simply who you are. Regardless of any actions that I take that may seem "unlady-like" if anyone were to call my gender into question I wouldn't try to find ways to prove to them that I'm a woman, I'd just laugh them into hell, because I know I'm woman! >:D I'm glad to see that you would do the same!  What people fail to realize is that all in all transgendered women and cisgendered women really aren't all that different when it comes down to it, from what I've seen thus far.

As far as brain size goes...I would be curious as to my brain size, being that I have androgen disorder, that might prove to be useful, it may answer a question or two: will my brain be larger than normal due to abnormal hormone levels that have been present from birth and, later, if I take treatment to correct it will it shrink to average female brain size? I suppose the issue is being able to see a before and after comparison, which would be difficult to do (is this done post-mortem or with MRI's) anyways, I'm blathering now, please don't volunteer to dissect my brain for me because of my rambling, loves! >:D

Well it's also possible that another region of the brain besides the BSTc is what makes us feel like we are the gender opposite of out birth sex.  I've also noticed that with many (not all) transsexuals, there tends to be a natural feminization of the body (masculinization for the FTMs) beforehand and this plays to more of an intersex theory.  I've also noticed the same thing with a lot of gay men.  They tend to have a more rounded female-like forehead, whereas a normal male forehead is flat and sloping.  So with noticable physical features, there must be some root cause that makes the body naturally start to align with how one is.  I have quite a few theories on this observation, but none of them are consistent enough to explain everything.

Melissa

I'll burst your bubble Mew.  My face had absolutely no feminine qualities. I still look in the mirror and wonder how I pass! ;) I was lucky enough to transition before my brow became overwhelming.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on March 19, 2007, 11:58:22 AM
I'll burst your bubble Mew.  My face had absolutely no feminine qualities. I still look in the mirror and wonder how I pass! ;) I was lucky enough to transition before my brow became overwhelming.

Quote from: Melissa on March 19, 2007, 11:24:32 AM
I've also noticed that with many (not all) transsexuals...

Bubble not burst.

Melissa

Quote from: Tink on March 18, 2007, 11:17:19 PM
I was just trying to validate my womanhood! *giggles sarcastically*

On the other hand, one of the reasons my wife says she may leave me is because I don't "make her feel like a woman, or make her feel validated as a woman sexually." She *needs* the polarity to feel good about herself - though obviously "validation" doesn't mean proving she IS a woman, just that she wants to experience her sexuality through that feedback, that relationship. She needs to be desired as a woman by a male.

I also had to laugh... we were looking at some pictures of her, and I commented that "you look so cute!"

She got mad and protested, "I don't want to be cute! I want to be SEXY!"

Hmmm... classic sex-motivated TS if you ask me.

I've also asked her to explain what attracts her to guys. She said something like, "it's not really that their body is so attractive, it's who they are, and how they can make me feel about myself by desiring me. If they can make ME feel sexy, then I'll find THEM sexy. Guys don't turn me on directly really; it turns me on when I turn on a guy whom I want to want me."

Sounds like I married a classic autogynephilic transsexual. Who knew?

Kate

If the cause is something a little more global, then since the studies showed no correlation between hormones and BTSc size, that region might be more of an indicator of gender identity (aside from its function which might be related to sexuality) independent of chromosomes and the characteristics they typically effect. Interesting!

Quote from: Kate on March 19, 2007, 02:08:12 PMI've also asked her to explain what attracts her to guys. She said something like, "it's not really that their body is so attractive, it's who they are, and how they can make me feel about myself by desiring me. If they can make ME feel sexy, then I'll find THEM sexy. Guys don't turn me on directly really; it turns me on when I turn on a guy whom I want to want me."

No kidding? Wow, just when I was sure I was a lesbian I had to go and read this! :D

Quote from: umop ap!sdn on March 19, 2007, 06:03:53 PM

Quote from: Kate on March 19, 2007, 02:08:12 PMI've also asked her to explain what attracts her to guys. She said something like, "it's not really that their body is so attractive, it's who they are, and how they can make me feel about myself by desiring me. If they can make ME feel sexy, then I'll find THEM sexy. Guys don't turn me on directly really; it turns me on when I turn on a guy whom I want to want me."

No kidding? Wow, just when I was sure I was a lesbian I had to go and read this! :D

In many ways that's how I feel about guys as well, but I do find their faces cute.

Melissa

Same here re their faces, as a matter of fact.

Why does the brain area/Bstc affect gender identity?  Gender to me is something that society shapes.
Its true we all have differences in what we like, character and so on. but why place all this responsibility on an area of the brain?
Its not what I was born with that counts. its what I do with it!

Quote from: hannahrichter on March 19, 2007, 11:01:46 PM
Why does the brain area/Bstc affect gender identity?  Gender to me is something that society shapes.
Its true we all have differences in what we like, character and so on. but why place all this responsibility on an area of the brain?
Its not what I was born with that counts. its what I do with it!

Are you ts?  if you were, you'd probably understand that gender goes beyond what society shapes.

Well, we need to keep looking for answers.  And at the same time, we need to be willing to accept information that turns up nothing. I'm hopeful someday that there will be something that can be tested and measured to prove that there is a reason for this hell we live through.

It might help some of those that follow.

Cindi

I don't need medicine to explain my sexuality, why would I need it to explain my gender identity? Personally I think that both clinical factors and society/culture have affected me being TS.

Given a working clinical test the most probable outcome would probably that we would be aborted while in womb.

I was thinking more along the lines of using the proof to help us and our families understand this thing better. That would be a huge benefit to some of us.

Cindi

A Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clearinghouse (http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-blanchard-lawrence.html)

"This clearinghouse explores varying viewpoints about The Man Who Would Be Queen and the ideology that informs the work of J. Michael Bailey, Ray Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence."

Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory)

"The Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory is an informal name for a controversial behavioral model of male-to-female transsexualism. This taxonomy claims there are two types of males who wish to transition: those who exhibit homosexuality and those who exhibit  ->-bleeped-<-. According to the concept, "Homosexual transsexuals" are attracted to males exclusively, and "autogynephilic transsexuals" exhibit a paraphilia in which they are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as women. Because this concept uses transsexual sexuality as its organizing principle, it conflicts with central tenets of other models of gender variance, especially the concept of gender identity."

It kinda ticks me off that they seem to pay abso-friggin-lutely no attention to the FtM transexuals when they discuss transexuality, as if they don't exist.  >:( I also dislike the narrowness in which a MtF transexual simply cannot be a lesbian but must be an  ->-bleeped-<-c. There are plenty of genetic women that are lesbians who do not feel opposed to their gender identity and there are plenty of gay men that also do not feel this way. So where does that leave their little hypothesis?!


On another note, Kate: you're wife's reasons for being attracted to men are surprisingly identical to my own (except that I'm attracted enough to women to not have to put up with that crap! ;D)  Also, I've been pondering what you've said about your muse. I think I'm in love with her, too, she's so pretty!  :o But seriously, it sounds like she's your ideal self and that you love her because nobody else does and because everybody needs to be loved, so in a round about way you're allowing yourself to love you're true self because it's difficult for you to openly love yourself because you've hated yourself for so long. I also have an ideal self but not as strongly as you because I'm closer to being her (no offense)...but she's the one that picks me apart and tells me to be more like her and I'm always trying to impress her. That's really embarrassing for me to admit, because I know it makes me sounds like a nutjob, but I thought it would help you to hear it.

Quote from: angelsgirl on March 20, 2007, 01:26:53 PM
But seriously, it sounds like she's your ideal self and that you love her because nobody else does and because everybody needs to be loved, so in a round about way you're allowing yourself to love you're true self because it's difficult for you to openly love yourself because you've hated yourself for so long. I also have an ideal self but not as strongly as you because I'm closer to being her (no offense)...but she's the one that picks me apart and tells me to be more like her and I'm always trying to impress her. That's really embarrassing for me to admit, because I know it makes me sounds like a nutjob, but I thought it would help you to hear it.

That was *beautiful*. OK, well, my keyboard here at work is soaked in tears now, lol... but it's *beautiful*. You just melted another chunk of emotional denial from me ;)

THANK you ;)

Kate

Quote from: LostInTime on March 20, 2007, 07:04:53 AM
A Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clearinghouse (http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-blanchard-lawrence.html)

"This clearinghouse explores varying viewpoints about The Man Who Would Be Queen and the ideology that informs the work of J. Michael Bailey, Ray Blanchard, and Anne Lawrence."

Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blanchard%2C_Bailey%2C_and_Lawrence_theory)

"The Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory is an informal name for a controversial behavioral model of male-to-female transsexualism. This taxonomy claims there are two types of males who wish to transition: those who exhibit homosexuality and those who exhibit  ->-bleeped-<-. According to the concept, "Homosexual transsexuals" are attracted to males exclusively, and "autogynephilic transsexuals" exhibit a paraphilia in which they are attracted to the thought or image of themselves as women. Because this concept uses transsexual sexuality as its organizing principle, it conflicts with central tenets of other models of gender variance, especially the concept of gender identity."

Granted, I haven't read the book, but from what I've heard (on the internets, admittedly), it was mostly either based on conversations at 2am in gay bars or simply made up.

The one MtF I personally know is transitioning at 21 and could pass before she started taking hormones.  There's no question that she naturally looks feminine (usually, anyway.)  She also likes girls, guns, kung fu, video games, and computers.  She alone makes the theory look silly, in my book.  Another thing that makes the theory look silly is the shenanigans on the book's Amazon page (people who give the book five stars, basically regurgitating each others' comments, and never comment on anything else, plus the apparent deletion of a lot of one-star comments from serious people commenting under their real names.)

So I don't put much stock in the very-feminine-gay/ ->-bleeped-<- model.

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 20, 2007, 04:14:08 PM
The one MtF I personally know is transitioning at 21 and could pass before she started taking hormones.  There's no question that she naturally looks feminine (usually, anyway.)  She also likes girls, guns, kung fu, video games, and computers.  She alone makes the theory look silly, in my book.

Hey, that sounds like me except I started at 28 and don't really like guns unless their in a video game.  The only reason I passed as male at 21 was because I had very short hair, a mustache (needed that to not look like I was 14), and a somewhat low voice.  So far I have ended up being bi (only as a woman).  According to this theory I'm kind of borderline because of my age/sexuality, but then my physical appearance in more indicative of the homosexual type (as they refer to it).

That's the reason why I wrote this:

Quote from: Melissa on March 19, 2007, 01:21:20 AM
I stopped trying to figure this stuff out.  Just being who (or what) I am, I contradict so many theories it just gives me a headache.  I have my own set of theories as well, but that's all they are.

Melissa

Quote from: Melissa on March 20, 2007, 05:21:33 PM

Quote from: ChildOfTheLight on March 20, 2007, 04:14:08 PM
The one MtF I personally know is transitioning at 21 and could pass before she started taking hormones.  There's no question that she naturally looks feminine (usually, anyway.)  She also likes girls, guns, kung fu, video games, and computers.  She alone makes the theory look silly, in my book.

Hey, that sounds like me except I started at 28 and don't really like guns unless their in a video game.  The only reason I passed as male at 21 was because I had very short hair, a mustache (needed that to not look like I was 14), and a somewhat low voice.  So far I have ended up being bi (only as a woman).  According to this theory I'm kind of borderline because of my age/sexuality, but then my physical appearance in more indicative of the homosexual type (as they refer to it).

But that doesn't work, does it?  Because the way he describes it, the homosexual type was always attracted to men and only men, and knew it, because they transitioned to get more men.

So yeah, you just continue to break this theory.

(Of course, on the side he believes all bisexuals (male ones, at least) are lying.  And he would believe you're male...so he'd already say you were lying.)

Quote from: Melissa on March 20, 2007, 05:21:33 PM
That's the reason why I wrote this:

Quote from: Melissa on March 19, 2007, 01:21:20 AM
I stopped trying to figure this stuff out.  Just being who (or what) I am, I contradict so many theories it just gives me a headache.  I have my own set of theories as well, but that's all they are.

Melissa

You and not a few other people here.   :)

Interesting reading, Ruth

To say the least.

The very fact they mentioned Blanchard should mean the study should be entirely dismissed.  This is the type of study that was entirely designed to dismiss TS.   

Too many false positives in Blanchard's work, plus no third party research team has attempted to reproduce his results. On top of that, it doesn't have any contingency 'sub-theory' to explain anomalous subjects, so it's really not a robust theory either. And the worst of it is it's not falsifiable. Conclusion: It's your typical Rationalistic/Post-Modernist Philosophy masking itself as science, by definition science is the study of natural phenomena which can be falsified [per Karl Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery] and isolated in its properties [per Rand's ITOE], thus Blanchard's theory can be tossed on out those grounds.

-- Brede

Quote from: Emelye on March 17, 2007, 05:19:02 PM

QuoteBecause the brain-sex theory is a "unitary" theory of transsexualism, it appears to contradict another widely accepted theory, proposed by Blanchard (1989a, 1989b, 2005), that there are two distinctly different subtypes of MtF transsexuals, homosexual and nonhomosexual, with different clinical presentations and different etiologies.

QuoteHow can data from seven (or perhaps eight) transsexual brains be reconciled with Blanchard's transsexual typology, which is now accepted by most knowledgeable clinicians and researchers?

(added emphasis is mine)

Dr. Lawrence is again trying to manufacture some legitimacy for Blanchard's widely discredited theories by stretching the truth to its elastic limits.  His work and that of Drs. Lawrence and Bailey have been shown to be flawed and steeped in sexual prejudice.  As such, I do not find Dr. Lawrence's supposed "Critique" to be valid.  I simply don't trust her to give us the whole story since it might contradict her pet theory.

I have often lamented that transsexualism is perceived to be so rare that very little funding and research is devoted to it.  That's why Lynn Conway's estimate of the rate of transsexuality should be promoted and tested until there is no doubt.  Maybe then we'll get a little more respect from the research community.

hugs & smiles
helen

There was some interesting discussion on this thread, so, in the interest of Tasha posting this morning Kelley Winter's  (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,38433.0.html) latest musings and having recently read Anne Lawrence latest theorizing in the Zucker-edited Archives of Sexual Behavior (http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/) on
"Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism," I thought the discussion might be interesting to continue.

My thoughts are simply this psychiatry & psychology often deal with "mental theorizing." The theorist makes presumptions based on their own beliefs about human beings and their own experiences and/or prejudices and tries to propound a theory that will fit all those things into one nicely wrpped intellectual package. At least, for her intellect.

Lawrence's other essay listed beneath the first one from ASB also seems to conform to her own notion. She's admitted that she is autogynephile and like most of us would prolly like to "justify" her way of doing things.

As Emeleye points out, Lawrence does, indeed, stretch the definition of "which is now accepted by most knowledgeable clinicians and researchers?." And I would imagine that the word "knowledgeable" is where she stretches most. I would imagine that she feels that people who disagree with Blanchard and his "findings" (forget the other B, he found nothing but a ->-bleeped-<--bar or two and his own concerns) and herself are "NOT knowlegable." Afterall, most of this is intellectual in-fighting and is not held to a standard that presumes or requires literal and moral truth.

Psychologists, from Freud to Beck to Gilligan all find, to some or another extent, those things that they can accept as standard. Freud wanted to accept that women/girls were envious of penises. Well, who woudn't be, I'm sure he thought. And even moreso, he wanted to remain accepted by his Viennese colleagues who had started shunning him when he initially reported the widespread existence of sexual abuse of girls by their fathers.

We find explanations for ourselves and others that generally don't violate our notions of self. No one cares for cognitive dissonance; it makes us try to resolve things.

Nichole

I am NOT oing to review this whole thread, but somebody started a similar thread on another forum recently and basically this is a summary of what I posted.  In regards to the title of this thread: Others have discussed the validity of the report (Dr Lawrence) I agree we can't trust her.  But we really don't need her opinion anyway.  Go back and look at the original studies.  Right on the front page of each, in the abstract, you will find the following:

1997:

QuoteTranssexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The  possible psychogenic or biological etiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years  [1,2]. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis  (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour [3,4], is larger in men than in women. A femalesized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex  hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female  brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a  result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones [5,6].

2000:

QuoteABSTRACT: Transsexuals experience themselves as being of the opposite sex, despite having the biological characteristics of one sex. A crucial question resulting from a previous brain study in male-to-female transsexuals was whether the reported difference according to gender identity in the central part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) was based on a neuronal difference in the BSTc itself or just a reflection of a difference in vasoactive intestinal polypeptide innervation fromthe amygdala, which was used as a marker. Therefore, we determined in 42 subjects the number of somatostatin-expressing neurons in the BSTc in relation to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and past or present hormonal status. Regardless of sexual orientation, men had almost twice as many somatostatin neurons as women (P   0.006). The number of neurons in the BSTc of maleto-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females (P   0.83). In contrast, the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range. Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood did not seem to have influenced BSTc neuron numbers. The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85: 2034–2041, 2000)

Both scientific studies (as opposed to Lawrences ideas) already determined that the brain difference were NOT the result of HRT.

Case closed.

It surely seems about to close anyhow, Beyond. The biggest knock now against the Zhou-Gooren studies are the very small numbers of cadavers used lead to a lack of generalizability in the theory of "brain sex."

Of course, the "studies" used by Blanchard rely on Kurt Freund's plesy-mythograph for their reliability, basically electronic sensors attached to a penis to measure blood flow. This is alleged to have recently changed to where they are now trying to attached the plesy-mythograph up to women and show dirty pics to us as well!! :)

I would imagine that within a few years a much larger study will be done along the lines of the Zhou studies and I would be willing to bet that the original research will be born out.

As for ->-bleeped-<-. I imagine it does exist, like others I have heard chats take place that appear to extol the "sexiness" of having a "female body" -- of course in the past few years those chats have all occurred with other women. The major flaw in the ->-bleeped-<- theory is that its underpinned by a belief that women don't feel themselves to be sexual.

My experiences of conversations about sexuality with other women simply do not bear that out, unless, of course, my friends are simply liars, bragging about things they don't experience but would like to.

And yes, the notion that HRT has "shrunk" the brain capacities or raised them seems also outlandish on it's face, especially when you think about 2.5% as AAL quoted in one of her essays. That seems like a lot of shrinkage or expansion inside a skull that fits the brain into a fairly tight space.

N~

There have been a lot of transitioners who change sexual orientation after SRS.  I mention it because the Blanchard/Lawrence/Bailey hypothetical categorizations don't seem to take the occasional sexual orientation shift into account.  I suppose they might try to backpedal and say that the MTF who started liking only men and only after transition were completing the "becoming" of the fantasy woman (who likes only men).  An the ones who didn't?  Oh, well, they must have crushes on fantasy lesbians.  It's a ridiculous result of hubritic efforts to pigeonhole all of existence into neatly defined categories.  Such a need is common, but in many it is pathological.  The conclusions these folks jump to merely underscore their illogic.

Posted on: July 03, 2008, 01:54:22 PM

---

Quote from: Kate on March 17, 2007, 07:30:20 PM

This aspect of sexuality is what needs to be appreciated in  ->-bleeped-<- in order to explain gender dysphoria in biologically heterosexual males; only looking at the most explicit expressions of  ->-bleeped-<- like masturbation while cross dressed, actually misses the bulk of how it's experienced. In a lot of ways, gender dysphoria in biologically male heterosexuals is analogous to a normal heterosexual male with a crush on a girl they're attracted to. The difference is that in these transsexuals, they have a crush on an internal girl that they would like to be, rather then an actual person, precisely as one might expect of a male heterosexuality that was directed at ones self.

I read that and was like... yikes... NAILED me. See my avatar over there? Well gee, think I've personified this whole GID thing a bit much? This description IS what it "feels like" for me, though that doesn't make it a cause or pathology. And it wasn't always this way, not as a child. But over time, that frustration condensed and manifested into an actual, semi-seperate entity I call my "muse." And yes, I'm in love with her in some bizarre way, even though she IS me. But I see it as a RESULT of GID, not a cause.

Result of GID?  No.  Result of being a woman?  Yes.  You felt nailed?  A lot of cisgendered women do the same thing.  Remember about the wife saying she is turned on by a man being attracted to her, and not by the man per se?  It is normal for a woman to be turned on by feeling like a sexy woman, whether that involves putting on sexy attire, visualizing herself, or seeing it reflected in the sexual desire in a man's eyes.

Posted on: July 03, 2008, 02:02:58 PM

---

Quote from: Beyond on July 03, 2008, 01:13:31 PM
I am NOT oing to review this whole thread, but somebody started a similar thread on another forum recently and basically this is a summary of what I posted.  In regards to the title of this thread: Others have discussed the validity of the report (Dr Lawrence) I agree we can't trust her.  But we really don't need her opinion anyway.  Go back and look at the original studies.  Right on the front page of each, in the abstract, you will find the following:

1997:

QuoteTranssexuals have the strong feeling, often from childhood onwards, of having been born the wrong sex. The  possible psychogenic or biological etiology of transsexuality has been the subject of debate for many years  [1,2]. Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis  (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour [3,4], is larger in men than in women. A femalesized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex  hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation. Our study is the first to show a female  brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a  result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones [5,6].

2000:

QuoteABSTRACT: Transsexuals experience themselves as being of the opposite sex, despite having the biological characteristics of one sex. A crucial question resulting from a previous brain study in male-to-female transsexuals was whether the reported difference according to gender identity in the central part of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc) was based on a neuronal difference in the BSTc itself or just a reflection of a difference in vasoactive intestinal polypeptide innervation fromthe amygdala, which was used as a marker. Therefore, we determined in 42 subjects the number of somatostatin-expressing neurons in the BSTc in relation to sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and past or present hormonal status. Regardless of sexual orientation, men had almost twice as many somatostatin neurons as women (P   0.006). The number of neurons in the BSTc of maleto-female transsexuals was similar to that of the females (P   0.83). In contrast, the neuron number of a female-to-male transsexual was found to be in the male range. Hormone treatment or sex hormone level variations in adulthood did not seem to have influenced BSTc neuron numbers. The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85: 2034–2041, 2000)

Both scientific studies (as opposed to Lawrences ideas) already determined that the brain difference were NOT the result of HRT.

Case closed.

Here is how AL addressed that:

Zhou et al. (1995) were clearly mistaken when they suggested that 'the small size of the BSTc in male-to-female transsexuals cannot be explained by adult sex hormone levels' (p. 70), as were Kruijver et al. (2000) when they concluded that 'hormonal changes in adulthood did not show any clear relationship with the BSTc . . . neuron number' (p. 2039). On the contrary, it now seems probable that estrogen treatment was responsible for the low mean BSTc volume and neuron number observed in the six MtF transsexuals studied and that testosterone treatment was responsible for the high BSTc volume and neuron number observed in the one FtM transsexual studied4.
A significant weakness of the Zhou/Kruijver studies was the inclusion of only a few nontranssexual persons with elevated cross-sex hormone levels. This may partly explain why the Zhou/Kruijver investigators underestimated the potent effects of hormone treatment on the adult brain. Contrary to a popular misconception, the Zhou/Kruijver studies did not examine any nontranssexual men who had been treated with estrogen (for example, for prostate cancer) or any nontranssexual women who had been treated with testosterone. They did examine one woman, S1, in whom a virilizing adrenal tumor had produced elevated testosterone levels and one man, S2, in whom a feminizing adrenal tumor had produced elevated estradiol levels. Neither individual had BSTc volumes or neuron numbers that were atypical for their sex, but it is probable that their cross-sex hormone levels, although elevated, had not been high enough and had not lasted long enough5 to be equivalent to the 5-20 years of cross-sex hormone therapy that the transsexuals had received.

A significant weakness of Anne Lawrence's presumptions are that she "did not examine any nontranssexual men who had been treated with estrogen (for example, for prostate cancer) or any nontranssexual women who had been treated with testosterone."  Maybe she should get off her ass and do some real research, instead of reinterpreting other people's studies to signify things that those people specifically disclaimed.  For example, she relies on the Chung et al. study as the primary scientific evidence of her wild conjectures.  But Chung et al.:

conjectured that fetal or neonatal hormone levels could affect gender identity and could also produce changes in BSTc 'synaptic density, neuronal activity, or neurochemical content' (p. 1032) that might not affect BSTc volume or neuron number immediately, but might do so during adulthood. Alternatively, they suggested, failure to develop a gender identity consistent with one's somatic sex might affect adult BSTc volume and neuron number by some unspecified mechanism.

But then, how could she resist the temptation to take someone else's hard work and reinterpret it in a manner clearly against their intent in order to promote her own crackpot theories that are so direly in need of any credible scientific evidence at all to support them.

Quote from: Nichole on July 03, 2008, 12:32:35 PM

There was some interesting discussion on this thread, so, in the interest of Tasha posting this morning Kelley Winter's  (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,38433.0.html) latest musings

ya go ahead, blame me for it! >:D haha

Quote from: glendagladwitch on July 03, 2008, 02:37:13 PMBut Chung et al.:

conjectured that fetal or neonatal hormone levels could affect gender identity and could also produce changes in BSTc 'synaptic density, neuronal activity, or neurochemical content' (p. 1032) that might not affect BSTc volume or neuron number immediately, but might do so during adulthood. Alternatively, they suggested, failure to develop a gender identity consistent with one's somatic sex might affect adult BSTc volume and neuron number by some unspecified mechanism.

But then, how could she resist the temptation to take someone else's hard work and reinterpret it in a manner clearly against their intent in order to promote her own crackpot theories that are so direly in need of any credible scientific evidence at all to support them.

Glenda, not only are you right, you are, apparently DARNED right!

Here're the relevant passages from the Chung, et.al. article for anyone interested in reading them. I din't place the entire article here, only the final three columns of the "Discussion" section.

Basically, for those who don't want to read it all (can't blame you, it's long for a BB) are that there is a sex-differentiation in the brain's BSTc between females and males in both neuronal number and volume of the structure that became more marked in adulthood than the work group had expected due to the fact that in rats the BSTc was a finished product before nataiity and due to the fact as Chung clearly points out that the Zhou & Kruijver studies had proven did not occur with the addition of cross-sex hormones in adult males and females in those earlier studies. The earlier studies, also in contradiction to what Lawrence claims did include genetic males and females. (Fact manipulation? Or outright misreading?)

What Chung et al found was that the di-morphism was present after adulthood in both males and females although the relative truth is that in males the structure is larger w/ greater neuron numbers than in females. The BSTc does indeed acoording to Chung and CO (who, btw. are also at Freie Universitaet Amsterdamm, like the earlier researchers) grow in both sexes.

They also conclude that BSTc volume differentials may very likely BE a cause of transsexuals not developing conguent-to-body sex-identities as do other males and females. 

Annie has either misread or out-and-out lied in attributing to Chung and his work group something they didn't say. Now who is wishfully thinking?
The bolded sections below are what Chung and his grouop actually wrote in their article. (I can provide it [pdf] to interested parties if you will PM me.) The italicised comment is the one Anne took totally from its context and used to try to make her point.

Not only is she lazy, but I suspect she takes it that no one reading her article would bother to look at what Chung et al actually wrote!

Quote from:  The Journal of Neuroscience, February 1, 2002, 22(3):1027–1033. Sexual Differentiation of the Bed Nucleus of the Stria Terminalis in
Humans May Extend into Adulthood
Wilson C. J. Chung,1,2 Geert J. De Vries,2 and Dick F. Swaab1
1Netherlands Institute for Brain Research, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and 2Center for Neuroendocrine
Studies and Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003
The late divergence of BSTc volume in males and females may
be a general characteristic of the human BST. The human BSTdspm
seems to become sexually dimorphic at approximately puberty,
as suggested by the developmental time points that were
included in the study by Allen and Gorski (1990). Indeed, the
BST-dspm appeared to be smaller in females than in males from
14 years of age (Allen and Gorski, 1990). Relatively late sexual
differentiation has also been observed in the pig hypothalamus.
The number of cells in the sexually dimorphic vasopressin and
oxytocin-containing nucleus in the pig hypothalamus increases in
(post)adolescent females but not in males (Van Eerdenburg and
Swaab, 1994). Recent studies also showed that several regions in
the adult human and primate brain continuously produce new
neurons and change in gray and white matter volume (Eriksson et
al., 1998; Gould et al., 1999; Gur et al., 1999; Sowell et al., 1999).
Therefore, marked morphological changes in the human brain,
including sexual differentiation, may not be limited to childhood
but may extend into adulthood.
There are several possible explanations for the lack of a sex
difference in the BSTc volume shortly after fetal or neonatal sex
differences in testosterone levels emerge. Organizational effects
of testosterone on sexual differentiation may become clear much
later in life. An example of a long delay in organizational effects
of gonadal steroids is the development of the sexually dimorphic
anteroventral periventricular nucleus (AVPv) in the rat brain,
which is larger in females than in males. Although, perinatal sex
differences in testosterone cause this sex difference in AVPv size,
its volume becomes only significantly different at approximately
puberty (Davis et al., 1996). Alternatively, it is possible that sex
differences in peripubertal or adult gonadal steroid levels establish
the sex difference in BSTc volume in adulthood. Although
androgens and estrogens in puberty cause the development of
secondary sexual characteristics in peripheral body structures, as
far as we know, no data exist on similar effects on human brain
structures. However, data from six cases reported in previous
studies suggest that the BSTc volume, as delineated by VIP or
somatostatin immunocytochemical staining, is not affected by
marked increases or decreases in gonadal steroid levels in adulthood.
A normal female-sized BSTc was found in one control
female with increased androgen levels and in two postmenopausal
control females with low gonadal steroid levels. Furthermore, a
normal male-sized BSTc was found in a control male with high
estrogen levels caused by a feminizing adrenal tumor and in two
control males who were orchidectomized as a result of prostate
cancer. The possibility that gonadal steroid-dependent changes in
VIP or somatostatin neuropeptide expression underlie the
changes BSTc volume, such as, in quail preoptic area, rat medial
amygdala and human amygdala (Panzica et al., 1987; Giedd et al.,
1996; Cooke et al., 1999), is also not supported by these six cases
who had marked changes in gonadal steroid levels, although their
the BSTc volume was normal for their gender (Zhou et al., 1995;
Kruijver et al. 2000).
In addition to direct actions of gonadal steroids on the BSTc,
the late emergence of sex differences in BSTc volume may reflect
relatively late sex-dependent changes in brain areas that supply
the BST with its VIP-IR innervation, such as the amygdala
(Eiden et al., 1985), which increases in size at a higher rate in
males than in females between 4 and 18 years of age (Giedd et al.,
1996). Although sex differences in gonadal steroids are the most
likely factor to cause sexual differentiation of the BSTc and the
areas that innervate the BSTc, we cannot exclude gonadal steroidindependent
mechanisms on brain sexual differentiation, such as
local expression of sex chromosomal genes (Reisert and Pilgrim,
1991). A candidate gene for such an effect is the SRY gene, which
was shown to be transcribed in the adult human hypothalamus
and cortex of males but not in females (Mayer et al., 1998).
Late sexual differentiation of the human BSTc volume also
affects our perception about the relationship between BSTs volume
and transsexuality. Interestingly, transsexuals receive their
first consultation between the ages of 20 and 45 years, which
coincides with the period of sex-dependent divergence of BSTc
volume found in the present study (Van Kesteren et al., 1996).
However, epidemiological studies show that the awareness of
gender problems is generally present much earlier. Indeed, 67–
78% of transsexuals in adulthood report having strong feelings of
being born in the wrong body from childhood onward (Van
Kesteren et al., 1996), supporting the idea that disturbances in
fetal or neonatal gonadal steroid levels underlie the development
of transsexuality. Moreover, observations that phenobarbital or
diphantoin usage during pregnancy, which affect gonadal steroid
levels, increases the prevalence of transsexuality in the offspring
support this idea (Dessens et al., 1999). Also, girls who had been
exposed to high androgen levels as infants caused by congenital
adrenal hyperplasia show an increased incidence of gender problems,
which supports early developmental programming of this
disorder (Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 1996; Zucker et al., 1996). The
lack of marked sexual differentiation of the BSTc volume in our
study before birth and in childhood certainly does not rule out
early gonadal steroid effects on BSTc functions. As suggested by
animal experiments, fetal or neonatal testosterone levels in humans
may first affect synaptic density, neuronal activity, or neurochemical
content during early BSTc development (Do¨hler,
1991; Park et al., 1997). Changes in these parameters could affect
the development of gender identity but not immediately result in
overt changes in the volume or neuronal number of the BSTc.
Alternatively, it must also be taken into consideration that
changes in BSTc volume in male-to-female transsexuals may be
the result of a failure to develop a male-like gender identity. In
summary, our finding of a sex difference in BSTc volume only in
adulthood suggests that marked sex-dependent organizational
changes in brain structure are not limited to early development
but may extend into adulthood.

There is nothing in this to suggest the HRT has any effect at all. WE are Freaking BORN this way and the changes occur quite naturally, just as they do with other adult human beings!! Poor, silly Anne Lawrence!

Quote from: Nichole on July 03, 2008, 03:48:00 PM

There is nothing in this to suggest the HRT has any effect at all. WE are Freaking BORN this way and the changes occur quite naturally, just as they do with other adult human beings!! Poor, silly Anne Lawrence!

I'm no fan of Anne or Zucker or Blanchard.  But there is very good science that says HRT is a huge part of it.

A more recent study, Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure (http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/content/full/155/suppl_1/S107), 2006 indicates that changes in brain morphology are due to cross-sex hormone treatment.  Subjects in the 2006 study were scanned prior to hormone treatment and showed no differentiation from non-transsexuals of their natal gender.  Dramatic changes in brain morphology were observed in all subjects after hormone therapy regardless of age at time of treatment.

Reading the study it seemed well designed and executed.  Before and after HRT imaging high resolution MRI with a control group.  I believe the European Journal of Endocrinology is a peer reviewed publication.  Nothing in it seemed biased to me.

What is the point of proving brain differentiation anyway?  Will it give transsexuals some kind of moral absolution?  Being elevated to the status of victims of organic brain disease will allows us to say "its not our fault."?  To the people that hate us we'll always be just another group of ->-bleeped-<-s.

I think many TS don't quite understand science.
They have a much greatest bias than scientist who
in most cases (except for the nutcases at Clarke). are
more interested in advancing their careers than an agenda.
There's no glory in advancing bad theories in
neuropsychology, it will only isolate you.

Psychology, is not a science at all since almost nothing
can be posited and tested, at least in an ethical way.

My best friend
is writing her doctoral thesis in neuropsychology and language
right now. She uses MRI scan, electroencephalograms.

And what Blanchard and Bailey are doing is not science either,
I don't know what the hell it is!

Anyway, my own belief is that since gender is probably not
a binary, brain modifications due to hormonal or DNA influence
may be accross the whole brain organisation and not just
one structure.

These changes would lead to a = predisposition = to being a TS or
an androgyne, dependant on social interactions.

All of this may make finding the TS brain link either difficult or irrelevant.

QuoteWhat is the point of proving brain differentiation anyway?  Will it give transsexuals some kind of moral absolution?  Being elevated to the status of victims of organic brain disease will allows us to say "its not our fault."?

For many here,  if not most,  that is the exact point of finding some type of physical proof of causation. There's a large push to take the responsibility of the choice of actions taken and place them on someone, or something, else.

It's so easy to point at singular things and say that they're the reason for everything. There's just many other things that can't be so easily explained by 'brain sex' and such.  For instance,  what about multiple systems that wish to transition based on a majority of their members wishing to.  ( yes, i'm referring to what most people will erroneously label as MPD/DID )  It would seem very unlikely for there to be a physical cause in that case, no?  Would people here be so quick to dismiss their situation and say that it's nothing but a mental disorder?

The cause is ultimately irrelevant if the issue can be resolved through known treatment and any attempt to deny others treatment that could and would be given at a medical professionals discretion would make someone no better than some of the bigotry i see complained about here.

Quote from: Keira on July 03, 2008, 06:40:41 PM
Anyway, my own belief is that since gender is probably not
a binary, brain modifications due to hormonal or DNA influence
may be accross the whole brain organisation and not just
one structure.

These changes would lead to a = predisposition = to being a TS or
an androgyne, dependant on social interactions.

All of this may make finding the TS brain link either difficult or irrelevant.

What you've said there is a psychobiological explanation of behavior.  People are born with potentials that may or may not be realized depending on their environment.  It has been found in post mortem examinations that the deceased has the same brain abnormalities as a person with schizophrenia.  Yet they never presented symptoms of that illness.  They never had a psychotic break.  Recent studies have shown that the social environment is as important as genetic predisposition.  Perhaps the same is true for transsexuality.

Hmm, One at a time or altogether?  >:D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

OK, one at a time.  ;D

Quote from: Claire de Lune on July 03, 2008, 06:08:44 PM

I'm no fan of Anne or Zucker or Blanchard.  But there is very good science that says HRT is a huge part of it.

A more recent study, Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure (http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/content/full/155/suppl_1/S107), 2006 indicates that changes in brain morphology are due to cross-sex hormone treatment.  Subjects in the 2006 study were scanned prior to hormone treatment and showed no differentiation from non-transsexuals of their natal gender.  Dramatic changes in brain morphology were observed in all subjects after hormone therapy regardless of age at time of treatment.

...

What is the point of proving brain differentiation anyway?  Will it give transsexuals some kind of moral absolution?  Being elevated to the status of victims of organic brain disease will allows us to say "its not our fault."?  To the people that hate us we'll always be just another group of ->-bleeped-<-s.

Where did you read about anything but BSTc, Claire? Did you read anuthing that suggested that HRT didn't affect the brain? I didn't. just that it didn't affect the volume and neuronal prevalence of the BSTc, but that changes tended to occur, contrary to expectation, after adulthood.

So, I think we can mostly attest, if there's a need, that those of us who've gone the HRT route have found changes in things like olfactory sensitivity, textural receptivity and such items that probably indict brain changes.

The question about BSTc is one of sex-differentiation and why someone might feel an incongruence between body and brain at 3-4 etc. The BSTc might naswer that.

As for the difference between ourselves and homosexuals? (I presume that's who you were talking about.) What's the difference between someone with congenital heart deformations and transsexuality? Are there birth anomalies that are not related in any way and may still be birth anomalies?     

Quote from: Keira on July 03, 2008, 06:40:41 PM
I think many TS don't quite understand science.
They have a much greatest bias than scientist who
in most cases (except for the nutcases at Clarke). are
more interested in advancing their careers than an agenda.
There's no glory in advancing bad theories in
neuropsychology, it will only isolate you.

...


Anyway, my own belief is that since gender is probably not
a binary, brain modifications due to hormonal or DNA influence
may be accross the whole brain organisation and not just
one structure.

These changes would lead to a = predisposition = to being a TS or
an androgyne, dependant on social interactions.

All of this may make finding the TS brain link either difficult or irrelevant.

Not saying you're wrong about TSes not understanding scientists Keira, any more than I would think you'd argue if I said a lot of TSes don't understand syntax and grammar, higher order physics, the ins and outs of statistical theory, how to repair a washing machine, driving etiquette or economics or developing a solar fuel cell. There'a a lot of places where a lot of us have huge educational gaps in our knowledge. Thenb there's those huge gaps in human ability as well.

I do understand that studies like those cited require replicability and that they require larger samples to be able to generalize across populations.

Zhou (!995): N=6, Kruijver(2000): N=8, Chung (2002): N=50. Nope, nothing large enough yet to be generalizable. The studies haven't yet been replicated in other medical forensic labs, at least not that have been reported and peer-reviewed. Yet, the study subject N grows each study. The studies are "suggestive" of certain things that may come through the development of the BSTc in himan beings. Not that the entire locus of anything is there at all. And certainly nothing is proven by 50 dissected brains (the 6 Zhou brains + 2 were used by Kruijver in 2000.) 

My point was not that any of that makes me a "more valid" person, nor does it make anyone less of a person, well, except for maybe Anne Lawrence who seems to have willfully abstracted one sentence from a study to make it sound like the study backed heer theorizing whne the syudy plainly didn't do that at all. Now that transsexual, perhaps, knows little about science?

Quote from: JC on July 03, 2008, 06:49:26 PM
What is the point of proving brain differentiation anyway?  Will it give transsexuals some kind of moral absolution?  Being elevated to the status of victims of organic brain disease will allows us to say "its not our fault."?

For many here,  if not most,  that is the exact point of finding some type of physical proof of causation. There's a large push to take the responsibility of the choice of actions taken and place them on someone, or something, else.

Now that's an interesting thought. How do you come to know the minds and hearts of other human beings so well, JC? They have confided this to you? Or you've simply tried to extrapolate your own ideas into anothers alledged thoughts? Who are these people who "take the responsibility of the choice of actions taken and place them on someone, or something, else."?  Or is this just speculation on your part?

Quote from: JCIt's so easy to point at singular things and say that they're the reason for everything.

Indeed. It is. I see that a lot.

Quote from: JCThere's just many other things that can't be so easily explained by 'brain sex' and such.  For instance,  what about multiple systems that wish to transition based on a majority of their members wishing to.  ( yes, i'm referring to what most people will erroneously label as MPD/DID )  It would seem very unlikely for there to be a physical cause in that case, no?  Would people here be so quick to dismiss their situation and say that it's nothing but a mental disorder?
The cause is ultimately irrelevant if the issue can be resolved through known treatment and any attempt to deny others treatment that could and would be given at a medical professionals discretion would make someone no better than some of the bigotry i see complained about here.

Excuse me? MPD? Do you have any idea just how rare that is? It;s really rare, a whole lot more rare than a cursory checking of tv specials that seem to imply it's widespread existence would allow a person to think.

Dissociation is pretty rare. Cases of a dissociation that actually forms discreet personalities in the same brain is very, very rare. But there does appear to be a personality that tends to organize the others and allows them to function as an individual to all intents and purposes. The human brain is wonderous. It can manage survival from dissociative disorders to catatonia to amnesia simply to protect itself and its systems. No, I'd say a physical cause might well be imputed to that. A cause that seems to be beyond our power to determine just yet, but it may well be physical. Yes. 

I respect any "multiple system" that manages to make it through the world with a purpose. That's admirable.

However, the imputation of reasons and emotional responses not ones own to another can be rather difficult ground to hold.



Whether the invincible "I" decides things or a BSTC decides things or a deranged personality decides things, I don't think it much matters to me. However when those yahoos outside this board scream and shout that "they all have mental disorders and are deranged because Ray Blanchard, Kenneth Zucker, Paul McHugh, Kurt Freund, Michael Bailey and Anne Lawrence and the DSM-IV-TR says they do.

Well, it's just nice to know that in labs in Amsterdam there are scientists at work who seem to be getting closer and closer to finding something that shows that what is labelled "crazy and deranged" actually has a biological etiology. And I bet that's even nice for a multiple system as well, knowing that it's not crazy.


Regards guys,

Nichole

QuoteNow that's an interesting thought. How do you come to know the minds and hearts of other human beings so well, JC? They have confided this to you? Or you've simply tried to extrapolate your own ideas into anothers alledged thoughts? Who are these people who "take the responsibility of the choice of actions taken and place them on someone, or something, else."?  Or is this just speculation on your part?

It's called experience and watching such happen here over the last 3 years many times.  I certainly hope you won't ask me to dive for specifics but if it comes down to that...   :)

Quote
Excuse me? MPD? Do you have any idea just how rare that is? It;s really rare, a whole lot more rare than a cursory checking of tv specials that seem to imply it's widespread existence would allow a person to think.

Well,  for one,  the issues intertwining aren't unknown : http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0404.htm

Secondly, as for rarity, possibly not quite as much as you'd think. But then again, i'm not referring solely to MPD/DID either as the only form of mutiplicity possible. Any more than a MtF transsexual is the only form of transgenderedness possible.  :)

Certainly we aren't going to fall back on solely clinical definitions of these things.   ^^

Quote...labelled "crazy and deranged" actually has a biological etiology.

Rather than banking on a potential biological causation i think i'll let the following snippit and link cover my thoughts on that issue.

"Neurodiversity is an idea that asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity

So, let me get this right, JC. We don't want to fall back on "clinical definitions" of clinical terms? While you were in Texas, did ya learn to play poker? What kind of bluff is that?

I think what you're missing, JC, is that for language to be at all meaningful there have to be some common definitions of what people are talking about. Now you can go along making up your own and then accusing people who don't understand them of being bigoted, but that just kinda makes their "bigotry" a foregone conclusion before they ever being to talk.

After all, if you make up the definitions as you go along, anything could be "bigotry" in any moment. Makes it really hard for people to discuss much of anything with you.

So, yeah, I think I'll use clinical definitions for MPD/DID until I find out what definition you intend, or do, use anyhow. Streams of wordage mean nothing without some agreed upon definitions and parameters.

"Neurodiversity is an idea that asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference"

Same thing. What's the meaning?

And, can you talk about this, other than  its being simply a conglomeration of $0.64 words? What do you suppose that wiki entry made by someone, yourself for all I know, means? And why should someone else speak for you? Speak for yourself, John

If the cause is neurological development then it's biological development. Nerves and neural pathways aren't some phlogiston-like substances that are incorporeal.

See, that's why we need agreed definitions and usages. I understand Lawrence. I'm not sure I do understand you, but I'm willing to give it a shot, if you're willing to give us a common grammar.

Nichole

QuoteSo, let me get this right, JC. We don't want to fall back on "clinical definitions" od clinical terms? While you were in Texas, did ya learn to play poker? What kind of bluff is that.

Well, one bit of reasoning of that statement is that this site as a whole doesn't run on purely clinical definitions. If so, the site definitions wouldn't exclude non-binary identities from the transsexual definition as we do have the GID-NOS entry in the DSM that we can weasel into.   :)

QuoteI think what you're missing, JC, is that for language to be at all meaningful there have to be some common definitions of what people are talking about. Now you can go along making up your own and then accusing people who don't understand them of being bigoted, but that just kinda makes their "bigotry" a foregone conclusion before they ever being to talk.

big·ot·ry     Audio Help   /ˈbɪgətri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[big-uh-tree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1.   stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

Now,  with that out of the way. When have i directly accused someone of bigotry?  I have, i believe made a few "If X then Y" type statements but i'm allowed my opinion, yes?  And not understanding isn't bigotry even by definition.

I'm more than happy to post my preferred definitions for any term you've having confusion on and i would welcome you to do the same and we can see in plain text where they do and don't mesh.  :)

QuoteSo, yeah, I think I'll use clinical definitions for MPD/DID until I find out what definition you intend, or do, use anyhow. Streams of wordage mean nothing without some agreed upon definitions and parameters.

Clinical definitions are such a bore in this area though.  Especially seeing as when you mention even the term 'neutrois' to any medical professional you tend to get a O.o look.  Just because it's not a clinical definition doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  :) 

Though,  back on to the topic at hand,  i'll use this one for multiplicity for the time being though it probably will need revisions.

"Multiple, Multiplicity - Two or more independent people who use the same body; the experience of sharing the body with others. Is included in plurality, but implies more separation and independence of people than being median. May or may not be associated with losing time, hearing voices, having an other world. "

From : http://astraeasweb.net/plural/glossary.html

As it seems to be sufficiently open to allow for most possibilities.

I'm not out to obliterate common language here. I would just like for the language that exists to account for the logical possibilities that can fall under it.  :)

Quote"Neurodiversity is an idea that asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference"

Same thing. What's the meaning?

Long story short?  Different isn't inherantly bad. That's the main point there.  ^^

QuoteAnd , can you talk about this, other than  its being simply a conglomeration of $0.64 words, what do you suppose that wiki entry made by someone, yourself for all I know, means? And why should someone else speak for you? Speak for yourself, John

That sounds oddly like an implied attack. If i find a method to efficiently explain a point i would like to make i plan to use it.  It's akin to asking someone to write out a calculation instead of using a calculator when the only relevant piece of information is the result.  If you don't know what something means,  google is always a wonderful source which i use quite often.   :)

Quote
If the cause is neurological development then it's biological development. Nerves and neural pathways aren't some phlogiston-like substances that are incorporeal.

To me,  it doesn't take much of a leap to bring in the nature vs nurture debate into that one.  Just because it's neurological doesn't mean it's since prior to birth, no?

QuoteSee, that's why we need agreed definitions and usages. I understand Lawrence. I'm not sure I do understand you, but I'm willing to give it a shot, if you're willing to give us a common grammar.

Done. Your serve.  ^^

Quote from: Nichole on July 03, 2008, 09:25:23 PM
Hmm, One at a time or altogether?  >:D :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

OK, one at a time.  ;D

Quote from: Claire de Lune on July 03, 2008, 06:08:44 PM

I'm no fan of Anne or Zucker or Blanchard.  But there is very good science that says HRT is a huge part of it.

A more recent study, Changing your sex changes your brain: influences of testosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure (http://www.eje-online.org/cgi/content/full/155/suppl_1/S107), 2006 indicates that changes in brain morphology are due to cross-sex hormone treatment.  Subjects in the 2006 study were scanned prior to hormone treatment and showed no differentiation from non-transsexuals of their natal gender.  Dramatic changes in brain morphology were observed in all subjects after hormone therapy regardless of age at time of treatment.

...

What is the point of proving brain differentiation anyway?  Will it give transsexuals some kind of moral absolution?  Being elevated to the status of victims of organic brain disease will allows us to say "its not our fault."?  To the people that hate us we'll always be just another group of ->-bleeped-<-s.

Where did you read about anything but BSTc, Claire? Did you read anuthing that suggested that HRT didn't affect the brain? I didn't. just that it didn't affect the volume and neuronal prevalence of the BSTc, but that changes tended to occur, contrary to expectation, after adulthood.

So, I think we can mostly attest, if there's a need, that those of us who've gone the HRT route have found changes in things like olfactory sensitivity, textural receptivity and such items that probably indict brain changes.

The question about BSTc is one of sex-differentiation and why someone might feel an incongruence between body and brain at 3-4 etc. The BSTc might naswer that.

As for the difference between ourselves and homosexuals? (I presume that's who you were talking about.) What's the difference between someone with congenital heart deformations and transsexuality? Are there birth anomalies that are not related in any way and may still be birth anomalies? 

1. I read the Zhou study in Nature and an abstract the Chung 1998 study.  I thought the methodology and sampling proceedures were deeply flawed.  There had been previous use of hormones prior to death.  As we all know, some changes from  HRT are irreversable.  Oh, and everyone was dead!

2. Did you read the 2006 EJE article?  HRT made large changes in many brain structures.  Shrinkage in size and volume of gray matter and the size of the hypothalumus.  Isn't te BSTc located in the hypothalamus?

3. "There is nothing in this to suggest the HRT has any effect at all. WE are Freaking BORN this way and the changes occur quite naturally, just as they do with other adult human beings!!"
What you said was absolute, no doubts, irrefutable fact.  That's simply not the case, as evidenced by the 2006 study.

4. I never said anything about homosexuals.  Natal males were what I refered to.

Quote from: Nichole on July 03, 2008, 09:25:23 PM

Quote from: Keira on July 03, 2008, 06:40:41 PM
I think many TS don't quite understand science.
They have a much greatest bias than scientist who
in most cases (except for the nutcases at Clarke). are
more interested in advancing their careers than an agenda.
There's no glory in advancing bad theories in
neuropsychology, it will only isolate you.

...


Anyway, my own belief is that since gender is probably not
a binary, brain modifications due to hormonal or DNA influence
may be accross the whole brain organisation and not just
one structure.

These changes would lead to a = predisposition = to being a TS or
an androgyne, dependant on social interactions.

All of this may make finding the TS brain link either difficult or irrelevant.

Not saying you're wrong about TSes not understanding scientists Keira, any more than I would think you'd argue if I said a lot of TSes don't understand syntax and grammar, higher order physics, the ins and outs of statistical theory, how to repair a washing machine, driving etiquette or economics or developing a solar fuel cell. There'a a lot of places where a lot of us have huge educational gaps in our knowledge. Thenb there's those huge gaps in human ability as well.

I do understand that studies like those cited require replicability and that they require larger samples to be able to generalize across populations.

Zhou (!995): N=6, Kruijver(2000): N=8, Chung (2002): N=50. Nope, nothing large enough yet to be generalizable. The studies haven't yet been replicated in other medical forensic labs, at least not that have been reported and peer-reviewed. Yet, the study subject N grows each study. The studies are "suggestive" of certain things that may come through the development of the BSTc in himan beings. Not that the entire locus of anything is there at all. And certainly nothing is proven by 50 dissected brains (the 6 Zhou brains + 2 were used by Kruijver in 2000.) 

My point was not that any of that makes me a "more valid" person, nor does it make anyone less of a person, well, except for maybe Anne Lawrence who seems to have willfully abstracted one sentence from a study to make it sound like the study backed heer theorizing whne the syudy plainly didn't do that at all. Now that transsexual, perhaps, knows little about science?

How's your French, Nicole?

Man, its seems nitpicking is kind of an art around here.

Saying most TS don't understand science is a given
since most humans are not scientists. So, I don't
see how that could be inflamatory in the least.

Yet, in the news, there's way too many studies meant
for scientist consumption bandied around without
explanation for the neophytes leading to much
wrong conclusions. That's how the proponents
of Intelligent Design are able to get so much
mileage out of their crap.

I'm a computer engineer and have done 2.5 years of pure physics
BTW before switching to
computer engineering in 1990. So, I believe I've got
more of a scientific backgound than most americans or Canadians (I hope  ;)


My point is that there could be much more than one specific
brain region involved in gender and thus would explain why
it doesn't seem to be binary.

Also, even if they would find one area involved in gender,
at most I believe they would find correlation and not cause
because of this interaction with hormones, other brain regions
(influenced by DNA and hormones in the womb) and upbriging
within a culture.

In a culture where gender seperations would be slight,
it may be able to express itself in subtle forms while
in cultures where culture is binary (like the middle east),
only those that need to bridge the divide would truly be revealed,
others would be stuck or would not even be able to put a
name on what they're feeling, let alone express it.

Its like Inuits having dozens
of names for snow while a New Guinea forest native has none.

That also colors studies on this since those that are in between,
or slightly dysphoric, may never be seen in a clinical setting. This
leads to a bias in the study subjects themselves and wrong conclusions
(like conclusions about TS seen in the 60's).

The calculated prevalence of TS (and I'd expect all androgynes and TG)
in a society has directly been linked to its cultural acceptability.
Prevalence rates has shot up at least 10 fold in the last 20 years,
don't think brains have changed that much in that time frame.
Countries like the Netherlands have very high prevalence rates.

Serve? You're supposing you managed to get a ball into the court, let alone won a point!  :laugh: :laugh:  ;)

As for bigotry? Well, you brought that up, not me. See?

Quote from: JC on July 03, 2008, 06:49:26 PM

The cause is ultimately irrelevant if the issue can be resolved through known treatment and any attempt to deny others treatment that could and would be given at a medical professionals discretion would make someone no better than some of the bigotry i see complained about here.

And this:

Quote from: JC1.   stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

is the definition you want to use? OK. So where exactly have you seen me do what you imply, evidently, that I've done? This is no attack, but it rather seems to me that you are more inclined to sophistry rather than sopistication of your argument. But, that's just an impression I have right now and may well change in a few minutes. Since I'm more than willing to be convinced that it's not true. That will be entirely up to you.

Quote from: JCClinical definitions are such a bore in this area though.  Especially seeing as when you mention even the term 'neutrois' to any medical professional you tend to get a O.o look.  Just because it's not a clinical definition doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

"Bored" I've found to be, in intellectual-like circles, just another terminology that suggests that one would rather not have to define their terms. So, what do you mean when you use the term "neutrois?"

Quote from: JC"Multiple, Multiplicity - Two or more independent people who use the same body; the experience of sharing the body with others. Is included in plurality, but implies more separation and independence of people than being median. May or may not be associated with losing time, hearing voices, having an other world. "

From : http://astraeasweb.net/plural/glossary.html

As it seems to be sufficiently open to allow for most possibilities.

Astraea's Web? What's that? You see, before I agree a definition I actually need something I can accept. TBH, this sounds very much like "woman trapped in a man's body" in kind. That particular designation from trans-people I find ludicrous. It doesn't match any experience I've ever had and is potentially just plain stupid. People aren't trapped in their bodies. Their bodies may not fulfill their sense of self, or, in my case, it was anomalous with my sex. No "identity" necessary. Simply an incongruent brain and most of the rest of the body it's a part of. Not such a problem anymore.

Personae I can understand. "People" I have a lot harder time with. People, as I think of them, are always in one body. One people, one body. That definition sounds a bit more like someone grappling for meaning when they have two or more distinct personae running along their neural pathways. As I said in my previous post

QuoteCases of a dissociation that actually forms discreet personalities in the same brain is very, very rare. But there does appear to be a personality that tends to organize the others and allows them to function as an individual to all intents and purposes. The human brain is wonderous. It can manage survival from dissociative disorders to catatonia to amnesia simply to protect itself and its systems.

The understandings of DID, very much like GID for most people, are amorphous and indeterminate. A sense that numerous people inhabit the same body being just one of those things. Sybil is very rare. That people dissociate is not rare at all. I have daydreams, that's dissociation.

I did have a client once who tried very hard to convince people he had multiples: never had any trauma in his life other than a few spankings from his father and his father used his hand on the client's bottom. That was it. The only trauma.

The incidences of multiples occurring are uniquely associated with trauma of some sort. Sometimes early childhood sexual abuse, sometimes great and horrific physical trauma, also as a child most often.

But my guy wanted to dress in his mother's clothes. His wife didn't much care for that. So my guy, being god-fearing and all, made a distinct personality he attributed  the wearing of clothes to. *shrug* It was a coping thing. And in that sense could well have been seen as DID. It's just that his organizing personality had totl control of when the other came out. That was not DID.

So, Astraea's is kinda loose for me as you appear to recoignize

QuoteAs it seems to be sufficiently open to allow for most possibilities.

. Something that allows "most possibilities" defines and incorporates none, or all or whatever number one wishes to insert. I'd rather just be bored and use something else. How 'bout that? Can we close this down a bit and you just specify what you want to include?

I'm pretty agreeable about most things, just not all things.  :) Tighten it up some, please?

QuoteI'm not out to obliterate common language here. I would just like for the language that exists to account for the logical possibilities that can fall under it

Again, lotsa words, not much meaning I can find. Soemthing that incorporates ... well, damn-near anything either of us can come up with. That'll make for a long discussion, but not much understanding, I imagine.

QuoteThat sounds oddly like an implied attack.

It may sound like that to you. But, no doubt you are nicer than I am when you attack. Trust me, everyone will know when and if I attack you, or anyone else. There'll be no implication, it'll be very plain indeed. So, try to take my word. Rather than attack you, which I honestly see no reason to do, you don't threaten me in any way, I'd just shrug and leave the discussion, allowing you to make whatever you wish of that.

If I do that, I'll have very good reason to do so. I'll simply see no point in going forward. And we are reaching that point. I don't mind, in fact welcome, a discussion that allows me to actually understand my interlocutor. Tekla, for instance, is pretty easy to enjoyably argue with. But tekla is also precise and clear about what sie says.

QuoteTo me,  it doesn't take much of a leap to bring in the nature vs nurture debate into that one.  Just because it's neurological doesn't mean it's since prior to birth, no?

Nope, "neurological" says nothing about birth, except that there was one or will be one at some point. People get neurological deficits through car-accidents and sports injuries on a very regular basis. They fall off the ledges of building and do that.

"Congenital" seems a generally accepted term for "inherited prior to birth."

Now, would you be willing to define "neutrois?" A few sentences will do. Make your point about "neutrois" and why that term somehow escapes what the Chung article I pasted a page ago has that threatens a "neutrois."

All the best, do you actually play tennis? Just wondering.

Nichole


 

For the last two not a lot.

Actually Claire, you referred to "->-bleeped-<-s." You're right, not homosexuals at all. But then sometimes you do get carried away. I understand that.

No, I haven't read your referred to study yet, perhaps tomorrow. Then I shall see what I see. Like I said, my original point was Anne Lawrence and her own selective quotes.

BSTC is not a part of the hypothalamus, it's an area associated with the hypothalamus and very near it, last I recall reading.

Keira, you damn "social science" as not "science" and then use it to say that "The calculated prevalence of TS (and I'd expect all androgynes and TG) in a society has directly been linked to its cultural acceptability." Am I to presume that was done in a physics lab or a forensic medical lab or a maths workroom?

If you're gonna say something isn't science then perhaps it would make a better impression if you didn't use the thing you denied efficacy to attempt to make a point?

Actually, what you think may well be right. But what Anne Lawrence used to "prove" that HRT contaminated research just wasn't where she said it was. It may be true, as Claire seems to think, but Anne didn't find it. So, once more, ->-bleeped-<- went begging.

Look it, if you two wanna be psychologically pathologized, be my guest. As I've said before I can take your money and not feel at all bad about it. But, I also think, Keira, that your various etiologies would include biological etiologies as well. Or is social science somehow now valid when it wasn't before?

Nichole

Nichole, I wish you would take a softer line in your
responses. I don't think my posts
warrant that much aggressivity. If I really wanted to
push hard, I would, but what would be the point to it.


I've not said anything about social sciences, I was
clearly talking hard science and medical studies would surely
fall in that arena.

I clearly said that its calculated prevalence,
obviously calculated from people seen in clinical settings.
But, that incidence is almost certainly undereported since
only those typically want to transition are seen in
those settings.

Obviously, the "real" prevalence rate if its due to a
physical condition is ALWAYS THE SAME (at least if external
conditions don't change since nutrion or environmental pollutants or medications
could have an impact).

I'm talking about the one we actually seen in a clinical setting
(which has increased incredibly in the last 20 years).

Quote

QuoteQuote from: JC
1.   stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

is the definition you want to use? OK. So where exactly have you seen me do what you imply, evidently, that I've done? This is no attack, but it rather seems to me that you are more inclined to sophistry rather than sopistication of your argument. But, that's just an impression I have right now and may well change in a few minutes. Since I'm more than willing to be convinced that it's not true. That will be entirely up to you.

...

Seriously.

Dot.
Dot.
Dot.

I thought it would be clear that even with a cursory reading it would be obvious i haven't accused any specific person of such,  much less yourself.  You're reading far too much into things that aren't there at all.

Next, sophistry?

"1.   a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2.   a false argument; sophism."

I'm not sure which of these you meant to imply but both are rather insulting and unbecoming of anyone, much less a staff member.

Quote"Bored" I've found to be, in intellectual-like circles, just another terminology that suggests that one would rather not have to define their terms.

Well,  seeing as this is a forum on the internet and most places that fall under such category are quite obviously not 'intellectual-like circles',  bored means that the arbitrary limiting of the argument to confines that don't sufficiently explain the situtation would make for an even less than productive discussion than we're having now.  :)

QuoteSo, what do you mean when you use the term "neutrois?"

This statement is a bit ambiguous to me.  I'm not sure if you're asking for a definition or an explination of my usage of the example.  Given that,  i'll choose the explination of the example since it's the more relevant of the two to me.

I meant that the term neutrois,  as an identity equal to male or female, is relativley unknown within clinical definitions. That said,  it still exists and those who hold that identity and quite often the associated body image that goes along with it ( google will help if you're not familiar ) still need medical treatment even so. So limiting the terminology to just the clinical would be a flawed stance within this place. I hope that clears it up a bit.

QuoteAstraea's Web? What's that? You see, before I agree a definition I actually need something I can accept. TBH, this sounds very much like "woman trapped in a man's body" in kind. That particular designation from trans-people I find ludicrous. It doesn't match any experience I've ever had and is potentially just plain stupid. People aren't trapped in their bodies. Their bodies may not fulfill their sense of self, or, in my case, it was anomalous with my sex. No "identity" necessary. Simply an incongruent brain and most of the rest of the body it's a part of. Not such a problem anymore.

This will sound harsh,  but your acceptance is really neither here nor there to the point at hand. Just because you or i have not had a particular experience doesn't mean that others don't. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss others experiences on the basis that they're so different from your own.  :)

QuotePersonae I can understand. "People" I have a lot harder time with. People, as I think of them, are always in one body. One people, one body. That definition sounds a bit more like someone grappling for meaning when they have two or more distinct personae running along their neural pathways. As I said in my previous post

Having an identity contrary to the body image that you're expected to hold is something that people have a hard time with also.  Again,  just because you're not familiar with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  But i think you'll notice this is a bit of a recurring theme.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person

Seems there are quite a few different stances on it anyway.  ^_~

QuoteThe understandings of DID, very much like GID for most people, are amorphous and indeterminate. A sense that numerous people inhabit the same body being just one of those things. Sybil is very rare. That people dissociate is not rare at all. I have daydreams, that's dissociation.

I did have a client once who tried very hard to convince people he had multiples: never had any trauma in his life other than a few spankings from his father and his father used his hand on the client's bottom. That was it. The only trauma.

Please now,  are you going to be telling me next that every transsexual is going to come to their therapist with self mutilated genitals and wearing their wife's underwear? Since of course we all know that when you say the term 'transsexual' it only means MtF within common culture. Just because some are the most visible doesn't mean they're the ONLY incarnation of the existence. You should seriously know better than that.

QuoteThe incidences of multiples occurring are uniquely associated with trauma of some sort. Sometimes early childhood sexual abuse, sometimes great and horrific physical trauma, also as a child most often.

Again, according to current clinical understanding this statement may be correct.  According to reality though, things can be quite different.  I would use transsexuals who still wish to transtition medically yet don't have life crippling dysphoria that makes them attempt suicide weekly as an example. Should we deny their existance just because they don't fit an outdated medical model?

QuoteSomething that allows "most possibilities" defines and incorporates none, or all or whatever number one wishes to insert. I'd rather just be bored and use something else. How 'bout that? Can we close this down a bit and you just specify what you want to include?

I'm pretty agreeable about most things, just not all things.  Smiley Tighten it up some, please?

Well, lets use the term 'transsexual' as an example. I've been personally told here that being a 'male to neutrois transsexual' is impossible and doesn't exist. Though,  as i am a partner of one that just had their SRS yesterday it would seem that isn't the case. Part of what needs to be sufficiently open is the defintion of transsexual to allow for ALL who medically transition to a sex other than what they were born with,  no less.  That's an example of sufficiently open.  :)

QuoteIt may sound like that to you. But, no doubt you are nicer than I am when you attack. Trust me, everyone will know when and if I attack you, or anyone else. There'll be no implication, it'll be very plain indeed. So, try to take my word. Rather than attack you, which I honestly see no reason to do, you don't threaten me in any way, I'd just shrug and leave the discussion, allowing you to make whatever you wish of that.

If I do that, I'll have very good reason to do so. I'll simply see no point in going forward. And we are reaching that point. I don't mind, in fact welcome, a discussion that allows me to actually understand my interlocutor. Tekla, for instance, is pretty easy to enjoyably argue with. But tekla is also precise and clear about what sie says.

That's nice. Though,  more content next time and less pseudo-threats would be more productive.

QuoteNope, "neurological" says nothing about birth, except that there was one or will be one at some point. People get neurological deficits through car-accidents and sports injuries on a very regular basis. They fall off the ledges of building and do that.

"Congenital" seems a generally accepted term for "inherited prior to birth."

While informative i suppose,   i'm not sure of the relevance?

QuoteNow, would you be willing to define "neutrois?" A few sentences will do. Make your point about "neutrois" and why that term somehow escapes what the Chung article I pasted a page ago has that threatens a "neutrois."

"Neutrois means non-gendered class. A Neutrois is someone who identifies as being non-gendered and seeks to lose the major physical signifiers that indicate gender to others (breasts, facial and body hair, crotch bulges, etc)."

from : http://neutrois.0catch.com/defin.htm

While i personally question the direct linking of the identity with the body image in that manner,  that's a different discussion.   :)  I explained my point in bringing it up earlier in this reply. 

Quote
All the best, do you actually play tennis? Just wondering.

I have in the past.    ^^

Sorry if that was too aggressive, Keira.

I was under the impression I had read that you thought of social science as vastly different from hard sciences. Clinical settings for trans-people vary. Sometimes a medical clinic for hrt or surgeries, etc and sometimes the offices of therapists. The correlation you stated sounded like a census-report. Was it a census of medical visits?

It really wouldn't matter I would think. Most practitioners of use to transsexuals and other gender-divergent people tend to be higher economically skewed for clientele. So, Jane the street-walker in Kinshasa might not be seen in a setting that would lend itself to her saying she had a gender-divergence. Socially and culturally that might be a way to die instead of a way to get treatment as well.

A biological etiology would, indeed, be pretty much normalized across human populations. My guess is that at one time it was. The modern prevalence of phyto-estrogens and other estrogenic compunds that we have insidiously released into the environment and given to people as medications, before, during and after pregancy, as you said, could all raise the incidence of TS and other gender-dissonance. Prolly has.

But, more information and better communication may simply have raised the tabulated rate a good deal on its own. People who once may have suffered in silence, fearing themselves and their "obsessions," may now be coming-out in more ways than they once did. So, indeed, it could be both biological and sociological as well as a prevalance increase from environmental contamination.

I don't disagree at all with your idea of various etiologies. The Chung research though does appear to point in a direction. It doesn't lock anything down and I still want to read the paper Claire cited to see what it says. But the Chung direction is not the direction that AAL says it pointed in at all.

But, I do think that ->-bleeped-<- as a defining typology is simply a hash of psychological theory based on earlier psychological theory and carried forward with a certain prejudice by people who feel better if they have a totally binary system to work with when it comes to sex and gender. Or, like Anne Lawrence, they relate the theory to their own personal efficacy as an explanation for "why I am the way I am."

Nichole

QuoteActually Claire, you referred to "->-bleeped-<-s." You're right, not homosexuals at all. But then sometimes you do get carried away. I understand that.

Clearly, the final paragraph of that that statement is opinion (mine) and not part of the preceeding comment on the EJE study, which you haven't read.  The final sentence where I use the word ->-bleeped-<-s was a legitimate use of hyperbole to illustrate the thinking of bigots.  I was not "carried" anywhere.  I'm not Walter Mondale and you're not Ronald Reagan!  :icon_boxing:

Quote from: JC on July 03, 2008, 06:49:26 PMFor many here,  if not most,  that is the exact point of finding some type of physical proof of causation. There's a large push to take the responsibility of the choice of actions taken and place them on someone, or something, else.

Umm No.  My only point is that over the last year or two several people have been claiming that the stideies say the opposite of what they clealy do say.

My decision to transition was made way before I knew of any studies and before I was even online.  From the beginning the goal was to lead a more honest life.  That may sound odd to you JC, but other people born TS will know what I'm talking about.  In a nutshell my life had been about trying to be what others wanted, not what I wanted.  I survived by lying to myself (denial) and others.  With transition lies are no longer necessary, I can just be me.  I don't need a laboratory study to prove something I already know.

@JC. Your persistence in finding "threats" seems to be the point. Trust me though, what you saw as a threat isn't. Just a statement of fact.

If the argument has to be strictly on the definitions, or in this case lack of them, that you yourself can lay out, and you cannot actually say, without quoting others, what is in your own mind about how something "looks" and what the parameters of your part of the discussion is going to be, then I see no point in even involving myself.

To do so, becomes, in my own mind, a condition of mental masturbation, that may be invigotating, but doesn't move anything at all forward toward understanding and being able to converse with one another.

Cut and paste do not argumentation make. Something from one's own mind does, or at least might. 

If the idea is to make cute jabs at one another to decide who's best-suited to do so... well, again, ... the effort is more than I am willing to undertake for the result. Perhaps at some point you will risk beginning a thread of your own that states opinion and where you are yourself. I think, though, that for the purposes of this one, I'll just move on to Claire.

Thanks for the try, but for me the cost isn't worth the candle it will make.


@Claire.

Good morning. After downloading the PDF to my desktop last night around 11 and making the posts above, I found I was unable to maintain enough focus to the technical paper to actually read it with any assurance of understanding it. So, you are definitely right that I hadn't read it. Thus, I tried not to make any statements about the article, except that given certain changes in perception that accompanied HRT, I found it very reasonable to expect that the researchers found exactly what you said they found.

Turns out, they list those changes in the abstract as some of the basis for the study. And the conclusion

QuoteIn conclusion, our data show that in young adult humans, androgen treatment increases the volume of the female brain towards male proportions and anti-androgen + estrogen treatment reduces the size of the male brain towards female proportions. The findings imply plasticity of adult human brain structure towards the opposite sex under the influence of cross-sex hormones.

They certainly do!  :)

Yet, what is not defined is the "knowing" of cross-sex-ness at young ages and the etiology of that. I don't think I'm unusual in that I have experienced the knowingness of being other than the defining secondary sex-characteristics of my body since I was 3-4. My first recall of talking to Mommie about that was from the time of my brother's first year of life: he was born when I was 2 months short of my first third birthday and I have a picture recall of the car he was brought home in and how fascinating it was to see him and be around him. Did all of that "make" me a girl? I don't know, but I think it was certainly an indication that I was not as I seemed to my parents.

If in volume and neuronal size and frequency I was born with a male-parameter brain, then okay. It's what it is. But within that brain there was that knowledge that I was not who my parents defined me as. I was like the ones they defined as "girl."

That we cannot dissect our way to ourselves surprises me none at all. Finally, the way is the way we can and will take to that end, becoming who we are, not what we are told we must be.

For me that's the hope of the researches of Amsterdam, Utrecht, that they can develop some information that's valid and generalizable toward a better understanding of where and why we come to be as we are. That, I am hopeful, will remove the entire subject from the postulations of both Blanchard, Anne Lawrence and others on one track and  the postulations of Andrea James and Lynn Conway and others on another track. Finally, both tracks are merely playing "mind-games" using the lives of human beings as constructs for a battle of wits and feelings. Our lives, all of our lives, are more valuable than that.

I don't know that the Hulsoff Pol, et. al. finding reverses the Zhou & Kruijver studies at all. But, it does give us a glimpse of insight that wasn't available until 2006. That is for the good. The simple knowledge that one's brain on estrogen or androgen moves that brain-size toward the sex one knows she or he has doesn't suddenly transform the musing of either of those camps mentioned above further toward or further away from being "right." I'm sure that Ms. Lwrence is "right" about her own proclivities and that her explanations of ->-bleeped-<- fit herself quite comfortably. I think the difficulty always arises when what I use to justify my own existence demands that I maintain that all others must have the same existence as I.

My deepest regards, Claire,

Nichole

QuoteIf the argument has to be strictly on the definitions, or in this case lack of them, that you yourself can lay out, and you cannot actually say, without quoting others, what is in your own mind about how something "looks" and what the parameters of your part of the discussion is going to be, then I see no point in even involving myself.

Yet you continue to do so.  Inexplicably even, since you've done little in the past few attempts at addressing the salient points of my postings other than bemoan the fact that you're unhappy with how it's said and presented rather than the content itself.

Quote
Cut and paste do not argumentation make. Something from one's own mind does, or at least might.

Bringing together relevant information does also.

Quote
If the idea is to make cute jabs at one another to decide who's best-suited to do so... well, again, ... the effort is more than I am willing to undertake for the result. Perhaps at some point you will risk beginning a thread of your own that states opinion and where you are yourself. I think, though, that for the purposes of this one, I'll just move on to Claire.

So far you've been the only one to make jabs that i've seen,  using snips such as 'sophistry' and 'mental-maturbation'.  If you happen to be incapable of responding to the actual content of a post,  simply say so and we can relent with this particular exchange.  :)

Quote
Thanks for the try, but for me the cost isn't worth the candle it will make.

Yet you continue to respond...or will you post yet again to exclaim how little replying is worth to you?   ;D

JC, Nichole, please calm down. You are both right, and both wrong -- and you are talking about almost the same thing.

JC, the lack of terminology within the medical profession is not altogether a fault. The ICD-10 (or DSM-IV) does not mention neutrois, but that's because being neutrois is not a gender identity disorder any more than being male is. Someone who identifies as neutrois may be diagnosed with transsexualism (F64.0) or other gender identity disorder (F64.8, commonly used for those who do not desire a full transition and SRS); tongue firmly in cheek one could suggest that most people have dual-role transvestism (F64.1) between their birth sex and neutrois. The diagnostic criteria are written as if there were two genders, but it doesn't take too big a mental leap to extrapolate them to cover non-binary genders.

Nichole, the same in reverse. ;) That is, especially when talking about non-binary genders one has to resort to terms not defined in most general dictionaries or medical terminologies. Some of the stuff here is just so rare that it has not come to the attention of lexicographers -- but even so, the terms are used by smaller groups, and they may be useful for us.

All right, so much for my rant. Back to topic.

I have been trained, among other things, as a linguist. In that scholarly tradition introspection is a valid research tool, although when using it one must realise that it has certain limitations and drawbacks that can be quite serious and dangerous. Nevertheless, introspection suggests very strongly that on some level my brain 'expects' to be connected to a body that is not of the sex that it in fact is. That in itself is by no means conclusive, of course. But when the available body of hard evidence, as cited here, is leaning somewhat towards there being neurological differences, my own conclusion is clear: the hypothesis that there is in fact some kind of neurological basis for our condition fits the facts as I see them much better than any of the other hypotheses that have been proposed so far. I may be wrong, but that's just the way science works. No big deal -- I'm not basing any of my decisions on the supposed etiology of my condition. I'm just curious.

  Nfr

Nicole,

I probably should have been a lawyer as I love to debate.  A great thing about it is I learn so much in preparing a post.  A bi-product of the BSTc argument is that I've learned a good deal about about prenatal androgen exposure in natal women and MtF transsexuals.  Because of it's transient nature it would be very diffficult to observe in vivo but the 2nd to 4th digit ratio in natal females and transsexuals provides evidence of similar levels of exposure. 

A thing I worry about finding things like BSTc causation is that if it's true, there is probably a genetic marker for it.  That could lead to people opting to terminate pregnancies which brings us one step closer to the Brave New World Huxley wrote about 50 years ago.

QuoteJC, the lack of terminology within the medical profession is not altogether a fault. The ICD-10 (or DSM-IV) does not mention neutrois, but that's because being neutrois is not a gender identity disorder any more than being male is. Someone who identifies as neutrois may be diagnosed with transsexualism (F64.0) or other gender identity disorder (F64.8, commonly used for those who do not desire a full transition and SRS); tongue firmly in cheek one could suggest that most people have dual-role transvestism (F64.1) between their birth sex and neutrois. The diagnostic criteria are written as if there were two genders, but it doesn't take too big a mental leap to extrapolate them to cover non-binary genders.

Finally,  someone that sees what i was driving at here.  ^^  I would agree that it's not altogether a fault as it does obviously take time for these things to become widely recognized. The point where i begin to have a problem with it is when someone who fits the diagnosis literally using that fact to exclude others who can logically fit into it but don't yet in the literal sense.  Or medical professionals not being able to get their heads out of that constraining box and deny treatment based on slight differences.

While research into the potential causes of transsexualism is a worthy cause.  It's those who are so willing to latch onto potentials that exclude other existing 'versions' of such that worry me.  I personally worry that if a cause is found that accounts for maybe 60% of existing transsexuals and that if one doesn't fit that biological model then you're out.  Sorry, no treatment for you!

So to put it shortly,  research = good!   Using preliminary research for political purposes = bad!

Quote from: Seshatneferw on July 04, 2008, 12:13:36 PM
I have been trained, among other things, as a linguist. In that scholarly tradition introspection is a valid research tool, although when using it one must realise that it has certain limitations and drawbacks that can be quite serious and dangerous. Nevertheless, introspection suggests very strongly that on some level my brain 'expects' to be connected to a body that is not of the sex that it in fact is. That in itself is by no means conclusive, of course. But when the available body of hard evidence, as cited here, is leaning somewhat towards there being neurological differences, my own conclusion is clear: the hypothesis that there is in fact some kind of neurological basis for our condition fits the facts as I see them much better than any of the other hypotheses that have been proposed so far. I may be wrong, but that's just the way science works. No big deal -- I'm not basing any of my decisions on the supposed etiology of my condition. I'm just curious.

  Nfr

I can't disagree with anything you said, Nfr, especially that. It was an excellent post.

Nichole

Quote from: Claire de Lune on July 04, 2008, 12:22:40 PM
Nicole,

I probably should have been a lawyer as I love to debate.  A great thing about it is I learn so much in preparing a post.  A bi-product of the BSTc argument is that I've learned a good deal about about prenatal androgen exposure in natal women and MtF transsexuals.  Because of it's transient nature it would be very diffficult to observe in vivo but the 2nd to 4th digit ratio in natal females and transsexuals provides evidence of similar levels of exposure. 

A thing I worry about finding things like BSTc causation is that if it's true, there is probably a genetic marker for it.  That could lead to people opting to terminate pregnancies which brings us one step closer to the Brave New World Huxley wrote about 50 years ago.

Hi, Claire,

Possibilities being what they are. The fact that we've yet developed a perfected technology that we haven't used means for me that your concerns are serious and should be watched and worked against if that becomes a fact.

The truth is, that already we abort for any number of probable liabilities that the fetus may well experience after natality. This would be one more. I would hope that parents would not do that. People of our kind have added immeasurably to the world and, imo, should continue to do so.

But a fear of what may come, even what probably will I don't think mitigates 100% against the discovery. There is hope that through the lives and actions of ourselves and those like us that that pass shall not arrive. I doubt it, but one hopes.

BTW, re: lawyering, I've been told the same thing, at least in terms of the summation parts of a legal case, and the grilling of witnesses! LOL. The more quotidian aspects of attorneying are perhaps best left to those like Dennis, who I imagine through an attention to detail and agreement actually can do some pretty good work as an attorney! :)

N~

Quote from: JC on July 04, 2008, 12:46:47 PM

While research into the potential causes of transsexualism is a worthy cause.  It's those who are so willing to latch onto potentials that exclude other existing 'versions' of such that worry me.  I personally worry that if a cause is found that accounts for maybe 60% of existing transsexuals and that if one doesn't fit that biological model then you're out.  Sorry, no treatment for you!

So to put it shortly,  research = good!   Using preliminary research for political purposes = bad!

And, JC,

Research is always used for politics of some sort or another. It's what occurs in a technological world where human beings continue to argue and believe widely-varying things.

That I may be one of that 60% who find an answer to why we are, I don't deny, I find useful.

That you may be that 40% that don't I find that that fact may just require more research and study until there is, or may be, some answer or guide.

To be worried that "It's those who are so willing to latch onto potentials that exclude other existing 'versions' of such that worry me." When I decide with no particular evidence that those who take what is given them for their own etiology are worrying, then I shall probably be worried most of the time.

I cannot speak for anyone else. I can for myself. You are worthy of human respect and an ability to live your life and find your way as best you can. I cannot imagine that that causes another any "hurt" of any sort, or that you should be denied the opportunity to reach a treatment stage same as Claire or myself.

To demand that would be despicable and unjust, something to be fought against, and not simply by yourself and those who may be like you, but by us all.

I don't know, but I should think that if I don't decide that you are "against" me without giving you a chance to show me anything else, then you'll always appear to be "against" me. If I always feel the need to "defend" myself against the cissexuals simply because they are cissexual and I am not, then it seems to me that I may well be viewed by them as cantakerous and always trying to fight. Perhaps, I'd be better served to simply not begin a discussion with a cissexual with that pov. Instead I might should be willing to allow the possibility that not every cissexual fits the paradigm I've made for cissexuals through my experiences with some cissexuals. 

The same is true with medical and psychological professionals. I've found that very often reasonable discussion with facts and something they can understand has made many doorways open that were shut. Treatment wasn't denied. I believe that perhaps Andra has found that to be true as well, at least in regard to the surgery that has been completed. I'm happy that sie obtained it. I welcome her new configuration; it adds to the possibility that others may follow and find a sense of completion of that part of their lives anyway.

As for there coming a time when "a cause is found that accounts for maybe 60% of existing transsexuals and that if one doesn't fit that biological model then you're out" then, at that point, there are more battles to fight. My own opinion is, and has been, that because I "get" mine is no reason to withdraw and leave another to make it best as they can.

Not everyone will agree with that, but to be honest, in what regard are any of us ever going to see the day of "everyone agreeing" that?

All the best,

Nichole

QuoteThat I may be one of that 60% who find an answer to why we are, I don't deny, I find useful.

That you may be that 40% that don't I find that that fact may just require more research and study until there is, or may be, some answer or guide.

Heh. While this sounds like an ideal situation,  since when have people waited beyond finding an answer that suits their own needs for a full and complete explination of a situation. There was plenty of uproar here when   "trans" was cut out of ENDA, yet if more people followed your suggestion there they should've been quite happy with a small step forward,  right?

QuoteTo be worried that "It's those who are so willing to latch onto potentials that exclude other existing 'versions' of such that worry me." When I decide with no particular evidence that those who take what is given them for their own etiology are worrying, then I shall probably be worried most of the time.

The worrying part is the lack of definitive proof and the lack of restraint in the "taking". I mean look at the  HBS proponents, some will preach that they have a birth defect and as such should be treated better than  others by that right when we have no...actual...proof.

I've been told more than once here that i can't possibly be trans-anything since i feel differently and see things differently than some others. Can you honestly tell me these people don't also exist in the 'real world'?

Quote
I cannot speak for anyone else. I can for myself. You are worthy of human respect and an ability to live your life and find your way as best you can. I cannot imagine that that causes another any "hurt" of any sort, or that you should be denied the opportunity to reach a treatment stage same as Claire or myself.

Congratulations. You can have your "tolerance" stamp now and as such disregard anything i've said directed at those who are intolerant. If you don't do these things then obviously my comments on that couldn't possibly directed at you personally. Correct?

QuoteI don't know, but I should think that if I don't decide that you are "against" me without giving you a chance to show me anything else, then you'll always appear to be "against" me. If I always feel the need to "defend" myself against the cissexuals simply because they are cissexual and I am not, then it seems to me that I may well be viewed by them as cantakerous and always trying to fight. Perhaps, I'd be better served to simply not begin a discussion with a cissexual with that pov. Instead I might should be willing to allow the possibility that not every cissexual fits the paradigm I've made for cissexuals through my experiences with some cissexuals.

I'm not entirely sure what you're attempting to say here.  It appears on the surface to be some haughty way of imparting some 'lesson' of sorts.  Discussion of opinions doesn't automatically equal direct opposition and i haven't seen anything directly to defend against other than the crude allegations that you've made prior.  Those allegations, i am against.  :)

QuoteI believe that perhaps Andra has found that to be true as well, at least in regard to the surgery that has been completed. I'm happy that sie obtained it. I welcome her new configuration; it adds to the possibility that others may follow and find a sense of completion of that part of their lives anyway.

This is a bit of a nitpick here though i feel that it still needs to be pointed out.  Using her/his etc. when referring to known non-binary individuals can be seen in quite the same light as calling a MtF 'he' or sir. I personally stick to the safer singular 'they' when said persons chosen pronoun is unknown. Though,  I can inform you that Andra has chosen "it" for itself.  :)

QuoteAs for there coming a time when "a cause is found that accounts for maybe 60% of existing transsexuals and that if one doesn't fit that biological model then you're out" then, at that point, there are more battles to fight. My own opinion is, and has been, that because I "get" mine is no reason to withdraw and leave another to make it best as they can.

Congratulations again! Have a cookie this time!   ;D

There is a problem with even the a physical thing accounting for that hypothetical
60% of TS.

Say for example they find a some kind of X factor in 60% of TS, and also
in 20% of non TS (and these people are not dysphoric),
which is highly possible since I don't believe that one single factor
is causal, but its due to many different interacting biological and sociological
factors.  Then what?

Back to square one, or not.
Does it make a difference?

The HBS crowd really worry me by their latching on very inconclusive
studies to justify their own existence. I've talked to quite a few
and it is enerving.

BTW, I have just about the most female digit ratio possible
(1.1). Does that validate me? Hey, I'm
just as messed up as any other human/women/man out there  ;)

I believe in removing the political and passion out of research.
For me, the studies are interesting because they reveal
the wonderful complexity of the human mind,
not because they provide
a stamp of approval for my life.

That someone could have a 1.1 digit ratio and NOT be
dysphoric (no doubt that they exist, not sure its been
studied that deeply)
is more interesting to me than the opposite
because it would reveal that other factors are involved
in this whole thing.

Quote from: Keira on July 04, 2008, 06:17:27 PM
That someone could have a 1.1 digit ratio and NOT be
dysphoric (no doubt that they exist, not sure its been
studied that deeply)
is more interesting to me than the opposite
because it would reveal that other factors are involved
in this whole thing.

I fall into the "wanted-by-transsexuals" portion of that digit-ration thingy as well, Keira. I presume it has something or the other to do with pre-natal hormonal washes.

I am just a little curious about because it would reveal that other factors are involved in this whole thing. What do you have in mind that might be implicated as 'other factors?' I'm not trying to argue your point. I simply am unable to see what some of those "other factors" are and would love to have your thoughts on those. I think that could be fascinating.

Nichole

There's girly boys, and manly girls. Transexuals just represent the extreme on this scale. Noone asks the limp wristed gay guy who cries at the end of every movie "Why are you doing this? Do you have a crush on your inner girl?".

100 years of bull->-bleeped-<- theories about people being toilettrained all wrong hasn't proven anything conclusive about a single mental condition. Although there probably is enviromental triggers, that could've turned that effeminate gay guy into a transexual during different circumstances, the fact remains. Some guys are just very, very effeminate.